Purpose
To investigate the impact of a proficiency-based progression (PBP) curriculum employed
to teach trainees in the skills needed to demonstrate proficiency for an arthroscopic
Bankart repair (ABR) and an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) by objectively
comparing pre- and immediate postcourse performances.
Methods
In a prospective study, 16 arthroscopy/sports medicine fellows and 2 senior residents
(complete group: N = 18) were randomly assigned to perform a precourse cadaveric ABR
(Bankart subgroup: N = 6), ARCR (cuff subgroup: N = 6), or basic skills on a shoulder
simulator (N = 6). After completing a PBP training curriculum, all 18 registrants
performed both an ABR and ARCR scored in real time by trained raters using previously
validated metrics.
Results
The Bankart subgroup made 58% fewer objectively assessed errors at the completion
of the course than at baseline (P = .004, confidence interval –1.449 to –0.281), and performance variability was substantially
reduced (standard deviation = 5.89 vs 2.81). The cuff subgroup also made 58% fewer
errors (P = .001, confidence interval –1.376 to 0.382) and showed a similar reduction in performance
variability (standard deviation = 5.42 vs 2.1). Only one subject’s precourse baseline
performance met the proficiency benchmark compared with 89% and 83% of the all registrants
on the final ABR and ARCR cadaveric assessments, respectively.
Conclusions
The results of this study reject the null hypothesis. They demonstrate that the implementation
of a PBP simulation curriculum to train the skills necessary to perform arthroscopic
Bankart and rotator cuff repairs results in a large and statistically significant
improvement in the trainee’s ability to meet the 2 related performance benchmarks.
Proficiency was demonstrated by 89% and 83% of the trainees for an ABR and an ARCR,
respectively, in a two- and one-half day course.
Clinical Relevance
Surgical training employing a PBP curriculum is efficient, effective, and has the
potential to improve patient safety.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to ArthroscopyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Innovation in medical education.N Engl J Med. 2014; 371: 794-795
- Magellan and Copernicus: Arthroscopy Association of North America Seeking Excellence in Education.Arthroscopy. 2015; 31: 1428-1429
- Proficiency-based virtual reality training significantly reduces the error rate for residents during their first 10 laparoscopic cholecystectomies.Am J Surg. 2007; 193: 797-804
- Metric-based simulation training to proficiency in medical education: What it is and how to do it.Ulster Med J. 2012; 81: 107-113
- Fundamentals of surgical simulation: Principles and practices.Springer, London2012
- Prospective, randomized, double-blind trial of curriculum-based training for intracorporeal suturing and knot tying.J Am Coll Surg. 2008; 207: 560-568
- Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: Results of a randomized, double-blinded study.Ann Surg. 2002; 236: 458-464
- Metric development for an arthroscopic Bankart procedure: Assessment of face and content validity.Arthroscopy. 2015; 31: 1430-1440
- The Bankart performance metrics combined with a shoulder model simulator create a precise and accurate training tool for measuring surgeon skill.Arthroscopy. 2015; 31: 1639-1654
- The Bankart performance metrics combined with a cadaveric shoulder create a precise and accurate assessment tool for measuring surgeon skill.Arthroscopy. 2015; 31: 1655-1670
- Objective assessment of knot-tying proficiency with the fundamentals of arthroscopic surgery training program workstation and knot tester.Arthroscopy. 2015; 31: 1872-1879
- A proficiency-based progression training curriculum coupled with a model simulator results in the acquisition of a superior arthroscopic Bankart skill set.Arthroscopy. 2015; 31: 1854-1871
- Prospective, randomised and blinded comparison of proficiency-based progression full-physics virtual reality simulator training versus invasive vascular experience for learning carotid artery angiography by very experienced operators.BMJ Simulation Technol Enhanced Learning. 2016; 2: 1-5
- 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. 2018; 8e020099
- Utilising the Delphi process to develop a proficiency-based progression train-the-trainer course for robotic surgery training.Eur Urol. 2019; 75: 775-785
- Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair metrics: establishing face, content, and construct validity in a cadaveric model.Arthroscopy. 2020; 36 (e71): 71-79
- Standards for Education and psychological testing.AERA, Washington, DC2014
- Stata statistical software: Release 16.StataCorp LLC, College Station,TX2019
- Effect of proficiency based progression simulation training and standard simulation training on Isbar performance. A randomized controlled trial.BMJ Open. 2019; 2019
- Objective structured assessment of technical skills and checklist scales reliability compared for high stakes assessments.ANZ J Surg. 2014; 84: 568-573
- AO international consensus panel for metrics on a closed reduction and fixation of a 31A2 pertrochanteric fracture.Injury. 2018; 49: 2227-2233
- The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance.Psychol Rev. 1993; 100: 363-406
- Inter-rater reliability for metrics scored in a binary fashion—performance assessment for an arthroscopic Bankart repair.Arthroscopy. 2018; 34: 2191-2198
- Fundamental principles of validation, and reliability: Rigorous science for the assessment of surgical education and training.Surg Endosc. 2003; 17: 1525-1529
Article info
Publication history
Published online: December 24, 2020
Accepted:
November 13,
2020
Received:
May 2,
2020
Footnotes
See commentary on page 1107
This work was supported by Arthroscopy Association of North America Education Foundation.
The authors report the following potential conflicts of interest or sources of funding: J.T. reports consultancy for CONMED, KFx Medical; and patent and stock options for FKx Medical. Full ICMJE author disclosure forms are available for this article online, as supplementary material.
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 Published by Elsevier on behalf of the Arthroscopy Association of North America
