TY  - BOOK
AU  - Auguste, Tamika
TI  - Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecology Manual Skills Construct Validation Trial
SN  - 0029-7844
PY  - 2020///
KW  - *Clinical Competence
KW  - *Genital Diseases, Female/su [Surgery]
KW  - *Laparoscopy/ed [Education]
KW  - *Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/ed [Education]
KW  - Canada
KW  - Cohort Studies
KW  - Female
KW  - Gynecology
KW  - Humans
KW  - Internship and Residency
KW  - Prospective Studies
KW  - Simulation Training
KW  - United States
KW  - MedStar Washington Hospital Center
KW  - Obstetrics and Gynecology/Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery
KW  - Journal Article
N2  - CONCLUSION: Validity evidence was established for the Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecology laparoscopic and hysteroscopic simulation systems by  distinguishing PGY-1 from PGY-3 trainees and proficient from expert gynecologic surgeons; METHODS: A prospective cohort study was IRB approved and conducted at 15 sites in the United States and Canada. The four participant cohorts based on  training status were: 1) novice (postgraduate year [PGY]-1) residents, 2) mid-level (PGY-3) residents, 3) proficient (American Board of Obstetrics and  Gynecology [ABOG]-certified specialists without subspecialty training); and 4) expert (ABOG-certified obstetrician-gynecologists who had completed a 2-year  fellowship in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery). Qualified participants were oriented to both systems, followed by testing with five laparoscopic  exercises (L-1, sleeve-peg transfer; L-2, pattern cut; L-3, extracorporeal tie; L-4, intracorporeal tie; L-5, running suture) and two hysteroscopic  exercises (H-1, targeting; H-2, polyp removal). Measured outcomes included accuracy and exercise times, including incompletion rates; OBJECTIVE: To establish validity evidence for the Essentials in Minimally Invasive Gynecology laparoscopic and hysteroscopic simulation systems; RESULTS: Of 227 participants, 77 were novice, 70 were mid-level, 33 were proficient, and 47 were experts. Exercise times, in seconds (+/-SD), for  novice compared with mid-level participants for the seven exercises were as follows, and all were significant (P<.05): L-1, 256 (+/-59) vs 187 (+/-45); L-2,  274 (+/-38) vs 232 (+/-55); L-3, 344 (+/-101) vs 284 (+/-107); L-4, 481 (+/-126) vs 376 (+/-141); L-5, 494 (+/-106) vs 420 (+/-100); H-1, 176 (+/-56) vs 141  (+/-48); and H-2, 200 (+/-96) vs 150 (+/-37). Incompletion rates were highest in the novice cohort and lowest in the expert group. Exercise errors were  significantly less and accuracy was greater in the expert group compared with all other groups
UR  - https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003936
UR  - https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003936
ER  -