Human Reliability Analysis of Cataract Surgery

Gauba, Vinod; Tsangaris, P; Tossounis, Charalambos M.; Mitra, Arijit; McLean, Chris; Saleh, George M.

doi:10.1001/archophthalmol.2007.47

Cited by 43 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…6,9 However, no specific analysis was ever undertaken with regard to the repeatability, reproducibility, or variability among novice trainees but rather these subjects were compared with more senior colleagues. 5,6,[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] What we therefore do not know is how an individual with minimal experience scores when undertaking the same task on several occasions (variability and reproducibility).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The development of a virtual reality training programme for ophthalmology: repeatability and reproducibility (part of the International Forum for Ophthalmic Simulation Studies)

Saleh

Theodoraki

Gillan

et al. 2013

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the variability of performance among novice ophthalmic trainees in a range of repeated tasks using the Eyesi virtual reality (VR) simulator. Methods Eighteen subjects undertook three attempts of five cataract specific and generic three-dimensional tasks: continuous curvilinear capsulorhexis, cracking and chopping, cataract navigation, bimanual cataract training, anti-tremor. Scores for each attempt were out of a maximum of 100 points. A non-parametric test was used to analyse the data, where a P-value of o0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Highly significant differences were found between the scores achieved in the first attempt and that during the second (Po0.0001) and third (Po0.0001) but not between the second and third attempt (P ¼ 0.65). There was no significant variability in the overall score between the users (P ¼ 0.1104) or in the difference between their highest and lowest score (P ¼ 0.3878). Highly significant differences between tasks were shown both in the overall score (P ¼ 0.0001) and in the difference between highest and lowest score (P ¼ 0.003). Conclusion This study, which is the first to quantify reproducibility of performance in entry level trainees using a VR tool, demonstrated significant intra-novice variability. The cohort of subjects performed equally overall in the range of tasks (no inter-novice variability) but each showed that performance varies significantly with the complexity of the task when using this high-fidelity instrument.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The development of a virtual reality training programme for ophthalmology: repeatability and reproducibility (part of the International Forum for Ophthalmic Simulation Studies)

Saleh

Theodoraki

Gillan

et al. 2013

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They demonstrated face, content, and construct validity and suggested that the tool could be used to enhance and structure resident surgical training. 11 Lee and colleagues 12 developed an ophthalmology wet laboratory curriculum for teaching and assessing cataract surgical competency. The curriculum includes pre-and posttests of cognitive skills in addition to a structured wet laboratory curriculum with observed ratings of surgical skill.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ophthalmology surgical competency assessment rubric for strabismus surgery

Golnik

Motley

Atilla

et al. 2012

Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] The authors started with a previously published assessment tool 3 and produced an internationally applicable rubric based on the modified Dreyfus model of skill acquisition (novice, beginner, advanced beginner, competent) by developing behavioral anchors explicitly defined for each level in each step of the surgical procedure. The authors define a rubric as an explicit set of criteria used for assessing a particular type of work or procedure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%