Competency-based assessment tools for regional anaesthesia: a narrative review
British Journal of Anaesthesia, ISSN: 0007-0912, Vol: 120, Issue: 2, Page: 264-273
2018
- 23Citations
- 62Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations23
- Citation Indexes23
- 23
- CrossRef21
- Captures62
- Readers62
- 62
Review Description
Competency-based assessment tools are used in regional anaesthesia to measure the performance of study participants, trainees, and consultants. This narrative review was performed to appraise currently published assessment tools for regional anaesthesia. A literature search found 397 citations of which 28 peer-reviewed studies met the inclusion criteria of primary psychometric evaluation of assessment tools for regional anaesthesia. The included studies were diverse in the type of assessment and the skill set being assessed. The types of assessments included multiple-choice questions, hand-motion analysis, cumulative sum, visuospatial and psychomotor screening, checklists, and global rating scales. The skill sets that were assessed included holistic regional anaesthesia technical and non-technical performance observed at the bedside, to isolated part-tasks, such as needle tip visualisation under ultrasound. To evaluate validity and reliability, we compared the studies against published medical education consensus statements on ideal assessment tools. We discuss the relative merits of different tools when used to assess regional anaesthesia, the importance of psychometrically robust assessment tools in competency-based anaesthesia education, and directions for future education research in regional anaesthesia.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091217539860; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2017.09.007; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85053410411&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29406175; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0007091217539860; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2017.09.007
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know