Publications

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

There is currently no objective and validated methodology available to assess the progress of endoscopy trainees or to determine when technical competence has been achieved. The aims of the current study were to develop an endoscopic part-task simulator and to assess scoring system validity.

METHODS

Fundamental endoscopic skills were determined via kinematic analysis, literature review, and expert interviews. Simulator prototypes and scoring systems were developed to reflect these skills. Validity evidence for content, internal structure, and response process was evaluated.

RESULTS

The final training box consisted of five modules (knob control, torque, retroflexion, polypectomy, and navigation and loop reduction). A total of 5 minutes were permitted per module with extra points for early completion. Content validity index (CVI)-realism was 0.88, CVI-relevance was 1.00, and CVI-representativeness was 0.88, giving a composite CVI of 0.92. Overall, 82 % of participants considered the simulator to be capable of differentiating between ability levels, and 93 % thought the simulator should be used to assess ability prior to performing procedures in patients. Inter-item assessment revealed correlations from 0.67 to 0.93, suggesting that tasks were sufficiently correlated to assess the same underlying construct, with each task remaining independent. Each module represented 16.0 % - 26.1 % of the total score, suggesting that no module contributed disproportionately to the composite score. Average box scores were 272.6 and 284.4 (P = 0.94) when performed sequentially, and average score for all participants with proctor 1 was 297.6 and 308.1 with proctor 2 (P = 0.94), suggesting reproducibility and minimal error associated with test administration.

CONCLUSION

A part-task training box and scoring system were developed to assess fundamental endoscopic skills, and validity evidence regarding content, internal structure, and response process was demonstrated.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a complex disease with multiple inter-relating causes culminating in rapid, seemingly disorganized atrial activation. Therapy targeting AF is rapidly changing and improving. The purpose of this review is to summarize current state-of-the-art diagnostic and therapeutic modalities for treatment of AF. The review focuses on reviewing treatment as it relates to the pathophysiological basis of disease and reviews preclinical and clinical evidence for potential new diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, including imaging, biomarkers, pharmacological therapy, and ablative strategies for AF. Current ablation and drug therapy approaches to treating AF are largely based on treating the arrhythmia once the substrate occurs and is more effective in paroxysmal AF rather than persistent or permanent AF. However, there is much research aimed at prevention strategies, targeting AF substrate, so-called upstream therapy. Improved diagnostics, using imaging, genetics, and biomarkers, are needed to better identify subtypes of AF based on underlying substrate/mechanism to allow more directed therapeutic approaches. In addition, novel antiarrhythmics with more atrial specific effects may reduce limiting proarrhythmic side effects. Advances in ablation therapy are aimed at improving technology to reduce procedure time and in mechanism-targeted approaches.

BACKGROUND

Assessment and discussion of individual risk for breast cancer within the primary care setting are crucial to discussion of risk reduction and timely referral.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial of a multiethnic, multilingual sample of women ages 40 to 74 years from two primary care practices (one academic, one safety net) to test a breast cancer risk assessment and education intervention. Patients were randomly assigned to control or intervention group. All patients completed a baseline telephone survey and risk assessment (via telephone for controls, via tablet computer in clinic waiting room before visit for intervention). Intervention (BreastCARE) patients and their physicians received an individualized risk report to discuss during the visit. One-week follow-up telephone surveys with all patients assessed patient-physician discussion of family cancer history, personal breast cancer risk, high-risk clinics, and genetic counseling/testing.

RESULTS

A total of 655 control and 580 intervention women completed the risk assessment and follow-up interview; 25% were high-risk by family history, Gail, or Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk models. BreastCARE increased discussions of family cancer history [OR, 1.54; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.25-1.91], personal breast cancer risk (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 3.02-5.70), high-risk clinics (OR, 3.84; 95% CI, 2.13-6.95), and genetic counseling/testing (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.34-3.68). Among high-risk women, all intervention effects were stronger.

CONCLUSIONS

An intervention combining an easy-to-use, quick risk assessment tool with patient-centered risk reports at the point of care can successfully promote discussion of breast cancer risk reduction between patients and primary care physicians, particularly for high-risk women.

IMPACT

Next steps include scaling and dissemination of BreastCARE with integration into electronic medical record systems.