Global versus task-specific postoperative feedback in surgical procedure learning
Background: Task-specific checklists and global rating scales are both recommended assessment tools to provide constructive feedback on surgical performance. This study evaluated the most effective feedback tool by comparing the effects of the Observational Clinical Human Reliability Analysis (OCHRA) and the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) on surgical performance in relation to the visual-spatial ability of the learners. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, medical students were allocated to either the OCHRA (n = 25) or OSATS (n = 25) feedback group. Visual-spatial ability was measured by a Mental Rotation Test. Participants performed an open inguinal hernia repair procedure on a simulation model twice. Feedback was provided after the first procedure. Improvement in performance was evaluated blindly using a global rating scale (performance score) and hand-motion analysis (time and path length). Results: Mean improvement in performance score was not significantly different between the OCHRA and OSATS feedback groups (P = .100). However, mean improvement in time (371.0 ± 223.4 vs 274.6 ± 341.6; P = .027) and path length (53.5 ± 42.4 vs 34.7 ± 39.0; P = .046) was significantly greater in the OCHRA feedback group. When stratified by mental rotation test scores, the greater improvement in time (P = .032) and path length (P = .053) was observed only among individuals with low visual-spatial abilities. Conclusion: A task-specific (OCHRA) feedback is more effective in improving surgical skills in terms of time and path length in novices compared to a global rating scale (OSATS). The effects of a task-specific feedback are present mostly in individuals with lower visual-spatial abilities.
|Organisation||Department of Surgery|
Nazari, T. (Tahmina), Bogomolova, K. (Katerina), Ridderbos, M. (Marlike), Dankbaar, M, van Merriënboer, J.J.G, Lange, J.F, … van der Hage, J.A. (2021). Global versus task-specific postoperative feedback in surgical procedure learning. Surgery. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2020.12.038