ArticleAfrican journal of thoracic and critical care medicine2025
Integrating Direct Observation of Procedural Skills as a workplace‑based assessment tool for residents working in an intensive care unit.
Article in African journal of thoracic and critical care medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) is a workplace-based assessment tool where the student is directly observed by the assessor during the procedure in an actual clinical situation, followed by immediate feedback. Objectives: To introduce DOPS as an assessment tool for ultrasound-guided central venous catheter insertion by residents (registrars) working in an intensive care unit. Methods: A mixed-methods study design was used for assessment (two sessions) using a pre-validated DOPS checklist for scoring 25 residents. Feedback was obtained from faculty members and residents after the second session using an anonymous questionnaire, and the satisfaction index was calculated for each item. Results: With the implementation of DOPS, a significant improvement in the second session score in comparison with the first session was observed (p<0.001). This improvement can be attributed to use of the DOPS checklist, deconstruction of steps and provision of immediate constructive feedback, which helped to cover all the aspects of the procedure in a systematic manner. The overall perception of the residents as assessed by the feedback questionnaire was satisfactory, with most of them feeling that the assessment by DOPS was unbiased and that constructive feedback positively impacted on their learning process, making it more engaging and interesting. The satisfaction index for all the items was ≥88%. Faculty members were also satisfied with DOPS as a formative assessment tool. Conclusion: DOPS promotes active and deep learning with effective assessment methods. It can improve teaching and training if there is commitment from all stakeholders and a supportive organisation. Study synopsis:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.