Proficiency-based progression training: an ‘end to end’ model for decreasing error applied to achievement of effective epidural analgesia during labour: a randomised control study

dc.contributor.authorKallidaikurichi Srinivasan, Karthikeyan
dc.contributor.authorGallagher, Anthony
dc.contributor.authorO'Brien, Niall
dc.contributor.authorSudir, Vinod
dc.contributor.authorBarrett, Nick
dc.contributor.authorO'Connor, Raymund
dc.contributor.authorHolt, Francesca
dc.contributor.authorLee, Peter
dc.contributor.authorO'Donnell, Brian
dc.contributor.authorShorten, George
dc.contributor.funderUniversity College Corken
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-09T16:16:06Z
dc.date.available2019-09-09T16:16:06Z
dc.date.issued2018-10-15
dc.description.abstractBackground: Training procedural skills using proficiency-based progression (PBP) methodology has consistently resulted in error reduction. We hypothesised that implementation of metric-based PBP training and a valid assessment tool would decrease the failure rate of epidural analgesia during labour when compared to standard simulation-based training.Methods: Detailed, procedure-specific metrics for labour epidural catheter placement were developed based on carefully elicited expert input. Proficiency was defined using criteria derived from clinical performance of experienced practitioners. A PBP curriculum was developed to train medical personnel on these specific metrics and to eliminate errors in a simulation environment. Seventeen novice anaesthetic trainees were randomly allocated to undergo PBP training (Group P) or simulation only training (Group S). Following training, data from the first 10 labour epidurals performed by each participant were recorded. The primary outcome measure was epidural failure rate.Results: A total of 74 metrics were developed and validated. The inter-rater reliability (IRR) of the derived assessment tool was 0.88. Of 17 trainees recruited, eight were randomly allocated to group S and six to group P (three trainees did not complete the study). Data from 140 clinical procedures were collected. The incidence of epidural failure was reduced by 54% with PBP training (28.7% in Group S vs 13.3% in Group P, absolute risk reduction 15.4% with 95% CI 2% to 28.8%, p=0.04).Conclusion: Procedure-specific metrics developed for labour epidural catheter placement discriminated the performance of experts and novices with an IRR of 0.88. Proficiency-based progression training resulted in a lower incidence of epidural failure compared to simulation only training.en
dc.description.sponsorshipUCC (ASSERT Centre)en
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden
dc.description.versionPublished Versionen
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.articleide020099en
dc.identifier.citationSrinivasan, K.K., Gallagher, A., O’Brien, N., Sudir, V., Barrett, N., O’Connor, R., Holt, F., Lee, P., O’Donnell, B. and Shorten, G., 2018. Proficiency-based progression training: an ‘end to end’model for decreasing error applied to achievement of effective epidural analgesia during labour: a randomised control study. BMJ open, 8(10), e020099. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020099en
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020099en
dc.identifier.eissn2044-6055
dc.identifier.endpage9en
dc.identifier.issued10en
dc.identifier.journaltitleAnaesthesiaen
dc.identifier.startpage1en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10468/8495
dc.identifier.volume8en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupen
dc.relation.urihttps://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/8/10/e020099.full.pdf
dc.rights© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018en
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/en
dc.subjectEpidural analgesiaen
dc.subjectLabouren
dc.subjectProficiency-based progression (PBP)en
dc.subjectAnaestheticen
dc.titleProficiency-based progression training: an ‘end to end’ model for decreasing error applied to achievement of effective epidural analgesia during labour: a randomised control studyen
dc.typeArticle (peer-reviewed)en
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 5 of 6
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
e020099.full.pdf
Size:
542.92 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
bmjopen-2018-October-8-10--inline-supplementary-material-1.pdf
Size:
446.39 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Supplementary file 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
bmjopen-2018-October-8-10--inline-supplementary-material-2.pdf
Size:
67.42 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Supplementary file 2
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
bmjopen-2018-October-8-10--inline-supplementary-material-3.pdf
Size:
113.89 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Supplementary file 3
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
bmjopen-2018-October-8-10--inline-supplementary-material-4.pdf
Size:
526.55 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Supplementary file 4
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
2.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: