Curriculum and assessment tool for less invasive surfactant administration: an international Delphi consensus study

Abstract

Background Training and assessment of operator competence for the less invasive surfactant administration (LISA) procedure vary. This study aimed to obtain international expert consensus on LISA training (LISA curriculum (LISA-CUR)) and assessment (LISA assessment tool (LISA-AT)). Methods From February to July 2022, an international three-round Delphi process gathered opinions from LISA experts (researchers, curriculum developers, and clinical educators) on a list of items to be included in a LISA-CUR and LISA-AT (Round 1). The experts rated the importance of each item (Round 2). Items supported by more than 80% consensus were included. All experts were asked to approve or reject the final LISA-CUR and LISA-AT (Round 3). Results A total of 153 experts from 14 countries participated in Round 1, and the response rate for Rounds 2 and 3 was >80%. Round 1 identified 44 items for LISA-CUR and 22 for LISA-AT. Round 2 excluded 15 items for the LISA-CUR and 7 items for the LISA-AT. Round 3 resulted in a strong consensus (99–100%) for the final 29 items for the LISA-CUR and 15 items for the LISA-AT. Conclusions This Delphi process established an international consensus on a training curriculum and content evidence for the assessment of LISA competence. Impact This international consensus-based expert statement provides content on a curriculum for the less invasive surfactant administration procedure (LISA-CUR) that may be partnered with existing evidence-based strategies to optimize and standardize LISA training in the future. This international consensus-based expert statement also provides content on an assessment tool for the LISA procedure (LISA-AT) that can help to evaluate competence in LISA operators. The proposed LISA-AT enables standardized, continuous feedback and assessment until achieving proficiency.

Technical Skills Curriculum in Neonatology: A Modified European Delphi Study

“…This study found a strong correlation between the CAMES-NAF prioritization and the final reprioritization by the participants, which may represent an acquiescence bias. However, previous studies have found the same strong correlation [7,22]. The results may not represent the needs of all countries, and the curriculum may, therefore, necessitate adaptations to fit the training occurs in the clinical setting.…”