Advanced Engineering Technology for Measuring Performance

Surgical Clinics of North America

Volumn 95, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 813-826

  Rutherford, Drew N ^a   D'Angelo, Anne Lise D ^a   Law, Katherine E ^b   Pugh, Carla M ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b Wisconsin Electric Machines and Power Electronics Consortium   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Motion tracking; Sensors; Simulation; Technology

Indexed keywords

ACCELEROMETER; ACCELEROMETRY; ADVANCED ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY; AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT; CAMERA; COMPUTER PROGRAM; ELECTRODERMAL RESPONSE; ELECTROMAGNETIC SENSOR; EYE TRACKING; HAND MOVEMENT; HUMAN; IMAGING; INFRARED CAMERA; PALPATION; PERFORMANCE; PHYSIOLOGICAL STRESS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SENSOR; TECHNOLOGY; THERMAL IMAGING; VIDEORECORDING; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EDUCATION; ENGINEERING; GENERAL SURGERY; MASS COMMUNICATION; TEACHING;

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; ENGINEERING; GENERAL SURGERY; HUMANS; MANIKINS; VIDEO RECORDING;

EID: 84938286971     PISSN: 00396109     EISSN: 15583171     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.suc.2015.04.005     Document Type: Review

References (53)

1. The American Board of Surgery. Training Requirements - General Surgery Certification. 2014. Available at: Accessed November 25, 2014. http://www.absurgery.org/default.jsp?certgsqe_training.
2. Datta V., Chang A., Mackay S., et al. The relationship between motion analysis and surgical technical assessments. Am J Surg 2002, 184(1):70-73.
3. Dosis A., Aggarwal R., Bello F., et al. Synchronized video and motion analysis for the assessment of procedures in the operating theater. Arch Surg 2005, 140(3):293-299.
4. Chmarra M., Bakker N., Grimbergen C., et al. TrEndo, a device for tracking minimally invasive surgical instruments in training setups. Sens Actuators A Phys 2006, 126(2):328-334.
5. Salud L.H., Ononye C.I., Kwan C., et al. Clinical breast examination simulation: getting to real. Stud Health Technol Inform 2012, 173:424-429.
6. Eva K., Regehr G. Self-assessment in the health professions: a reformulation and research agenda. Acad Med 2005, 80(10):S46-S54.
7. Martin J.A., Regehr G., Reznick R., et al. Objective structured assessment of technical skill (OSATS) for surgical residents. Br J Surg 1997, 84(2):273-278.
8. Fried G., Feldman L. Objective assessment of technical performance. World J Surg 2008, 32(2):156-160.
9. Regehr G., MacRae H., Reznick R., et al. Comparing the psychometric properties of checklists and global rating scales for assessing performance on an OSCE-format examination. Acad Med 1998, 73(9):993-997.
10. Epstein R. Assessment in medical education. NEngl J Med 2007, 356(4):387-396.
11. Issa N., Salud L., Kwan C., et al. Validity and reliability of a sensor-enabled intubation trainer: a focus on patient-centered data. JSurg Res 2012, 177(1):27-32.
12. Chmarra M., Klein S., de Winter J., et al. Objective classification of residents based on their psychomotor laparoscopic skills. Surg Endosc 2010, 24(5):1031-1039.
13. James A., Vieira D., Lo B., et al. Eye-gaze driven surgical workflow segmentation. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 2007, 4792:110-117.
14. Pavlidis I., Tsiamyrtzis P., Shastri D., et al. Fast by nature-how stress patterns define human experience and performance in dexterous tasks. Sci Rep 2012, 2:305.
15. Pugh C. Application of national testing standards to simulation-based assessments of clinical palpation skills. Mil Med 2013, 178(10):55-63.
16. Magill R. Motor learning and control: concepts and applications 2011, McGraw-Hill, New York. 9th edition.
17. Oropesa I., Chmarra M., Sanchez-Gonzalez P., et al. Relevance of motion-related assessment metrics in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Innov 2013, 20(3):299-312.
18. D'Angelo A., Rutherford D., Ray R., et al. Idle time: an underdeveloped performance metric for assessing surgical skill. Am J Surg 2015, 209(4):645-651.
19. Glarner C., Hu Y., Chen C., et al. Quantifying technical skills during open operations using video-based motion analysis. Surgery 2014, 156(3):729-734.
20. Oropesa I., Sanchez-Gonzalez P., Chmarra M., et al. EVA: laparoscopic instrument tracking based on endoscopic video analysis for psychomotor skills assessment. Surg Endosc 2013, 27(3):1029-1039.
21. Zecca M., Sessa S., Lin Z., et al. Development of the ultra-miniaturized inertial measurement unit WB3 for objective skill analysis and assessment in neurosurgery: preliminary results. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 2009, 12:443-450.
22. Hofstad E., Vapenstad C., Chmarra M., et al. Astudy of psychomotor skills in minimally invasive surgery: what differentiates expert and nonexpert performance. Surg Endosc 2013, 27(3):854-863.
23. Mackay S., Datta V., Mandalia M., et al. Electromagnetic motion analysis in the assessment of surgical skill: relationship between time and movement. ANZ J Surg 2002, 72(9):632-634.
24. Keele S., Posner M. Processing of visual feedback in rapid movements. JExp Psychol 1968, 77(1):155.
25. McEwen B.S. Physiology and neurobiology of stress and adaptation: central role of the brain. Physiol Rev 2007, 87(3):873-904.
26. Shastri D., Papadakis M., Tsiamyrtzis P., et al. Perinasal imaging of physiological stress and its affective potential. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 2012, 3(3):366-378.
27. Cohen S., Kessler R., Gordon L. Measuring stress: a guide for health and social scientists 1997, Oxford University Press, New York.
28. Shastri D., Merla A., Tsiamyrtzis P., et al. Imaging facial signs of neurophysiological responses. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2009, 56(2):477-484.
29. Berguer R., Smith W.D., Chung Y.H. Performing laparoscopic surgery is significantly more stressful for the surgeon than open surgery. Surg Endosc 2001, 15(10):1204-1207.
30. Montagu J.D., Coles E.M. Mechanism and measurement of the galvanic skin response. Psychol Bull 1966, 65(5):261-279.
31. Lederman S., Klatzky R. Hand movements: a window into haptic object recognition. Cogn Psychol 1987, 19(3):342-368.
32. Lederman S., Klatzky R. Haptic classification of common objects: Knowledge-driven exploration. Cogn Psychol 1990, 22(4):421-459.
33. Klatzky R., Lederman S. The haptic identification of everyday life objects. Touching for knowing: cognitive psychology of haptic manual perception. 2003, 105. John Benjamins Publishing Co, Amsterdam. Y. Hatwell, A. Streri, E. Gentaz (Eds.).
34. Pugh C.M., Youngblood P. Development and validation of assessment measures for a newly developed physical examination simulator. JAm Med Inform Assoc 2002, 9(5):448-460.
35. Pugh C.M., Rosen J. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of pressure sensor data acquired by the E-Pelvis simulator during simulated pelvic examinations. Stud Health Technol Inform 2002, 85:376-379.
36. Mackel T., Rosen J., Pugh C. Data mining of the E-Pelvis simulator database: a quest for a generalized algorithm for objectively assessing medical skill. Stud Health Technol Inform 2006, 119:355-360.
37. Mackel T., Rosen J., Pugh C. Markov model assessment of subjects' clinical skill using the E-Pelvis physical simulator. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2007, 54(12):2133-2141.
38. Balkissoon R., Blossfield K., Salud L., et al. Lost in translation: unfolding medical students' misconceptions of how to perform a clinical digital rectal examination. Am J Surg 2009, 197(4):525-532.
39. Laufer S., Cohen E.R., Maag A.L., et al. Multimodality approach to classifying hand utilization for the clinical breast examination. Stud Health Technol Inform 2014, 196:238-244.
40. Pugh C.M., Domont Z.B., Salud L.H., et al. Asimulation-based assessment of clinical breast examination technique: do patient and clinician factors affect clinician approach?. Am J Surg 2008, 195(6):874-880.
41. Laufer S, Rasske K, Stopfer L, etal. Undetectable force sensors for characterizing the clinical breast exam. Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE. 2014. Chicago, August 26-30, 2014.
42. Wang N., Gerling G., Childress R., et al. Quantifying palpation techniques in relation to performance in a clinical prostate exam. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 2010, 14(4):1088-1097.
43. Wang N., Gerling G., Krupski T., et al. Using a prostate exam simulator to decipher palpation techniques that facilitate the detection of abnormalities near clinical limits. Simul Healthc 2010, 5(3):152-160.
44. Salud L.H., Pugh C.M. Use of sensor technology to explore the science of touch. Stud Health Technol Inform 2011, 163:542-548.
45. D'Angelo A, Law K, Cohen E, etal. Use of error analysis to assess resident performance. Surgery, in press.
46. Catchpole K., Giddings A., Wilkinson M., et al. Improving patient safety by identifying latent failures in successful operations. Surgery 2007, 142(1):102-110.
47. Mackenzie C., Xiao Y. Video techniques and data compared with observation in emergency trauma care. Qual Saf Health Care 2003, 12:II51-II57.
48. Mays N., Pope C. Qualitative research: observational methods in health care settings. BMJ 1995, 311(6998):182-184.
49. Law K., Hildebrand E., Oliveira-Gomes J., et al. Acomprehensive methodology for examining the impact of surgical team briefings and debriefings on teamwork. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 2014, 58:703-707.
50. Cook D.A., Brydges R., Zendejas B., et al. Technology-enhanced simulation to assess health professionals: a systematic review of validity evidence, research methods, and reporting quality. Acad Med 2013, 88(6):872-883.
51. Downing S. Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment data. Med Educ 2003, 37(9):830-837.
52. Stefanidis D., Sevdalis N., Paige J., et al. Simulation in surgery: what's needed next?. Ann Surg 2015, 261(5):846-853.
53. Woods D., Fassnacht C. Transana v2.61a 2012, The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, Madison (WI), Available at:. http://www.transana.org.