Räder, Sune B E W4; Abildgaard, Ulrik5; Jørgensen, Erik1; Bech, Bo2; Lönn, Lars3; Ringsted, Charlotte V4
1 Hjertemedicinsk Klinik, Hjertecentret Rigshospitalet, Rigshospitalet, The Capital Region of Denmark2 Karkirurgisk Klinik, Abdominal Centre, Rigshospitalet, The Capital Region of Denmark3 Radiologisk Klinik, Diagnostisk Center, Rigshospitalet, The Capital Region of Denmark4 Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, The Capital Region of Denmark5 Cardiology, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, The Capital Region of Denmark
INTRODUCTION: Simulation-based assessment studies have related simulator performance to clinical experience instead of actual clinical performance. This study validates a novel rating scale for coronary angiography (CA) performance and at the same time explores the association between CA performance in a simulated setting and in the catheterization laboratory. METHODS: Ten cardiologists and cardiology residents with varying degrees of CA experience performed 2 CAs in the catheterization laboratory and 2 CAs in a simulated setting. The residents had prior simulator experience opposite cardiologists. Two raters assessed the operators' video-recorded performances using the novel CA rating scale (CARS). RESULTS: The correlation between CARS scores in the catheterization laboratory and the simulated setting was R = 0.20 (P = 0.195). Residents' scores were higher in the simulated setting than in the catheterization laboratory. The correlation between operators' previous clinical experience in CA and CARS scores was R = 0.65 (P = 0.005) in the catheterization laboratory and R = 0.11 (P = 0.353) in the simulated setting. CONCLUSIONS: The association between CA performance in a simulated setting and actual performance in the catheterization laboratory is not linear. The novel rating scale for CA (CARS) seems to be a valid proficiency assessment instrument in the catheterization laboratory. Familiarity with the simulator may overestimate proficiency, which means that simulator performance as a predictor of clinical performance should be interpreted with caution.
Simulation in Healthcare : Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 2014, Vol 9, Issue 4, p. 241-8