Can skills coaches be used to assess resident performance in the skills laboratory?

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid


IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to compare faculty ratings between live versus video-recorded resident performances and faculty versus skills coaches' ratings of video-recorded resident performances.MethodsPGY1 residents were observed, video-recorded, and rated during a Verification of Proficiency examination on 4 stations (ie, suturing, laparotomy, central line, and cricothyroidotomy). One surgeon and 2 trained skills coaches independently rated each video-recorded performance (N = 25). The chi-square test was used to compare checklist ratings. Analysis of variance was used to compare global ratings. Intraclass correlations were used to evaluate inter-rater agreement.ResultsThere were no statistical differences in faculty checklist ratings for live versus video-recorded performances (P > .05), and we found a nearly perfect interrater agreement, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.99 (P < .001). When comparing faculty versus skills coaches' ratings on video-recorded performances, we found no differences for the global or checklist ratings. Inter-rater agreement was moderately high for the global ratings, ICC = 0.71 (P <. 0.01, 95% confidence interval 0.23–0.96), and nearly perfect for the checklist ratings, ICC = 0.99 (P < .001, 95% confidence interval 0.94–1.00).ConclusionWhen assessing residents' performances, use of video-recorded performance ratings and skills coaches may be viable alternatives to live ratings performed by surgical faculty.

    loading  Loading Related Articles