Evaluation tool for a gastroenterostomy simulated training1.

Autor:	Barreira MA; MD, Surgical Oncologist, Hospital Universitário Walter Cantídio, Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC), Fortaleza-CE, Brazil. Conception and design of the study; technical procedures; acquisition, interpretation and analysis of data; manuscript preparation and writing., Siveira DG; MD, General Surgeon, Hospital Universitário Walter Cantídio, UFC, Fortaleza-CE, Brazil. Technical procedures, critical revision., Rocha HAL; PhD, Assistant Professor, Professional Master's Degree Program in Minimally Invasive Technology and Simulation in Health, Centro Universitário Christus (UNICHRISTUS), Fortaleza-CE, Brazil. Conception and design of the study, statistical analysis, interpretation of data, critical revision., Moura Junior LG; PhD, Hospital Geral Dr. César Cals, Professional Master's Degree Program in Minimally Invasive Technology and Simulation in Health, UNICHRISTUS, Fortaleza-CE, Brazil. Conception and design of the study, critical revision., Mesquita CJG; PhD, Professional Master's Degree Program in Minimally Invasive Technology and Simulation in Health, UNICHRISTUS, Fortaleza-CE, Brazil. Conception and design of the study, interpretation and analysis of data, critical revision, final approval., Borges GCO; MD, Holy House of Mercy of Fortaleza, Professional Master's Degree Program in Minimally Invasive Technology and Simulation in Health, UNICHRISTUS, Fortaleza-CE, Brazil. Conception and design of the study, interpretation and analysis of data, critical revision, final approval.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Acta cirurgica brasileira [Acta Cir Bras] 2019 Mar 18; Vol. 34 (3), pp. e201900308. Date of Electronic Publication: 2019 Mar 18.
DOI:	10.1590/s0102-865020190030000008
Abstrakt:	Purpose: To create a checklist to evaluate the performance and systematize the gastroenterostomy simulated training. Methods: Experimental longitudinal study of a quantitative character. The sample consisted of twelve general surgery residents. The training was divided into 5 sessions and consisted of participation in 20 gastroenterostomys in synthetic organs. The training was accompanied by an experienced surgeon who was responsible for the feedback and the anastomoses evaluation. The anastomoses evaluated were the first, fourth, sixth, eighth and tenth. A 10 item checklist and the time to evaluate performance were used. Results: Residents showed a reduction in operative time and evolution in the surgical technique statistically significant (p<0.01). The correlation index of 0.545 and 0,295 showed a high linear correlation between time variables and Checklist. The average Checklist score went from 6.8 to 9 points. Conclusion: The proposed checklist can be used to evaluate the performance and systematization of a simulated training aimed at configuring a gastroenterostomy.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu