Advertisement

Validation of the endoscopic stone treatment step 1 (EST-s1): a novel EAU training and assessment tool for basic endoscopic stone treatment skills—a collaborative work by ESU, ESUT and EULIS

  • Domenico VenezianoEmail author
  • Achilles Ploumidis
  • Silvia Proietti
  • Theodoros Tokas
  • Guido Kamphuis
  • Giovanni Tripepi
  • Ben Van Cleynenbreugel
  • Ali Gozen
  • Alberto Breda
  • Joan Palou
  • Kemal Sarica
  • Evangelos Liatsikos
  • Kamran Ahmed
  • Bhaskar K. Somani
  • ESU Training Group
Original Article
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

The endoscopic stone treatment step 1 (EST s1) protocol has been developed after 2 years of collaborative work between different European Association of Urology (EAU) sections.

Objectives

In this study, we added construct validity evidence to the EST s1 curriculum.

Materials and methods

The EST-s1 curriculum includes four standardized tasks: flexible cystoscopy, rigid cystoscopy, semi-rigid URS and flexible URS. Validation was performed during the annual 2016 EUREP meeting in Prague. 124 participants provided information on their endoscopic logbook and carried out these 4 tasks during a DVD recorded session. Recordings were anonymized and blindly assessed independently by five proctors. Inter-rater reliability was checked on a sample of five videos by the calculation of intra-class correlation coefficient. Task-specific clinical background of participants was correlated with their personal performance on the simulator. Breakpoint analysis was used to define the minimum number of performed cases, to be considered “proficient”. “Proficient” and “Non-proficient” groups were compared for construct validity assessment. Likert scale-based questionnaires were used to test content and to comment on when the EST-s1 exams should be undertaken within the residency program.

Results

124 participants (105 final-year residents and 19 faculty members) took part in this study. The breakpoint analysis showed a significant change in performance curve at 36, 41, 67 and 206 s, respectively, corresponding to 30, 60, 25 and 120 clinical cases for each of the 4 tasks. EST-s1 was scored as a valid training tool, correctly representing the procedures performed in each task. Experts felt that this curriculum is best used during the third year of residency training.

Conclusion

Our validation study successfully demonstrated correlation between clinical expertise and EST-s1 tasks, adding construct validity evidence to it. Our work also demonstrates the successful collaboration established within various EAU sections.

Keywords

Stone treatment Training EST-s1 Hands-on training Education Curriculum Training protocol 

Abbreviations

EAU

European Association of Urology

HoT

Hands-on training

YAU

Young Academic Urologists

EUREP

European Urology Residents Education Programme

EST-s1

Endoscopic stone treatment step 1 (curriculum)

ESU

European School of Urology

ESUT

European Section of Uro-Technology

EULIS

European Section of Urolithiasis

URS

Uretero-renoscopy

SD

Standard deviation

Notes

Acknowledgements

ESU Training Group members are: Ben Van Cleynenbreugel, Domenico Veneziano, Ali Gozen, Bhaskar Somani. All their institutions are already in the paper as they are also listed as authors.

Author contributions

DV: project development, data Collection, and manuscript writing. AP: data collection. SP: data collection. TT: data collection. GK: data collection. GT: statistics. BVC: data collection. AG: data collection. AB: data collection. JP: data collection. KS: data collection. EL: data collection. KA: data collection. BKS: project development and manuscript writing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Geraghty R, Jones P, Somani BK (2017) Worldwide trends of urinary stone disease treatment over the last two decades: a systematic review. J Endourol 31(6):547–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brunckhorst O, Aydin A, Abboudi H, et al. Simulation-based ureteroscopy training: a systematic review. J Surg Educ. 2015;72(1):135-43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Seitz C, Fajkovic H (2014) Training in ureteroscopy for urolithiasis. Arab J Urol 12(1):42–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2013.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Veneziano D, Ahmed K, Van Cleynenbreugel BSEP, Gözen AS, Palou J, Sarica K, Liatsikos EN, Sanguedolce F, Honeck P, Alvarez-Maestro M, Papatsoris A, Kallidonis P, Greco F, Breda A, Somani B (2017) Development methodology of the novel endoscopic stone treatment step 1 (EST s1) training/assessment curriculum. J Endourol.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0248 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Türk C, Neisius A, Petrik A, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Tepeler A, Thomas K, Dabestani S, Drake T, Grivas N, Ruhayel Y (2017) EAU guidelines on urolithiasisGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hananel D, Stubbs J, Sweet R (2015) Simulator development—from idea to prototype to product. In: Aggarwal R, Korndorfer J, Cannon-Bowers J (ed) ACS principles and practice for simulation and surgical education research. American College of Surgeons, Chicago, pp 138–152Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brinkman W, Tjiam IM, Schout BMA, Hendrikx AJM, Witjes JA, Scherpbier AJJA, et al. Designing simulator-based training for nephrostomy procedure: an integrated approach of cognitive task analysis (CTA) and 4-component instructional design (4C/ID). J Endourol. 2011;25:A29-AGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khamis NN, Satava RM, Alnassar SA, Kern DE (2016) A stepwise model for simulation-based curriculum development for clinical skills, a modification of the six-step approach. Surg Endosc 30(1):279–287.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4206-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Messick S (1994) Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons' responses and performance as scientific inquiry into score meaning. Am Psychol 50:741–749.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Korndorffer JR, Kasten SJ, Downing SM (2010) A call for the utilization of consensus standards in the surgical education literature. Am J Surg 199(1):99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sweet RM, Hananel D, Lawrenz F (2010) A unified approach to validation, reliability, and education design for for surgical technical skills training. Arch Surg 145(2):197–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldenberg M, Lee JY (2018) Surgical education, simulation, and simulators—updating the concept of validity. Curr Urol Rep 19:52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vassiliou MC, Feldman LS, Andrew CG, Bergman S, Leffondrè K, Stanbridge D, Fried GM (2005) A global assessment tool for evaluation of intraoperative laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 190:107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jones RH, Molitoris BA (1984 Aug 15) A statistical method for determining the breakpoint of two lines. Anal Biochem 141(1):287–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sarmah P, Voss J, Ho A, Veneziano D, Somani B. Low vs high fidelity: the importance of ‘realism’ in the simulation of a stone treatment procedure. Curr Opin Urol. 2017;27:316–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brinkman WM, Tjiam IM, Schout BMA, Muijtjens AMM, Van Cleynenbreugel B, Koldewijn EL et al (2014) Results of the European basic laparoscopic urological skills examination. Eur Urol. 65(2):490–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fried GM. FLS assessment of competency using simulated laparoscopic tasks. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12(2):210–2.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1657-6 (World J Urol) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Veneziano D, Minervini A, Beatty J et al (2016 Apr) Construct, content and face validity of the camera handling trainer (CHT): a new E-BLUS training task for 30° laparoscope navigation skills. World J Urol 34(4):479–484.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1657-6 (Epub 2015 Aug 6) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kowalewski TM, Sweet R, Lendvay TS et al (2015) Validation of the AUA BLUS tasks. J Urol 195:998–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Regehr G, MacRae H, Reznick RK et al (1998) Comparing the psychometric properties of checklists and global rating scales for assessing performance on an OSCE-format examination. Acad Med 73:993–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wood TC, Raison N, Haldar S et al (2016) Training tools for nontechnical skills for surgeons—a systematic review. J Surg Educ.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.11.017 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brunckhorst O, Shadid S, Aydin A, Khan S, Mcllhenny C, Brewin J (2015) The relationship between technical and nontechnical skills within a simulation-based ureteroscopy training environment. J Surg Educ 72(5):1039–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Domenico Veneziano
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  • Achilles Ploumidis
    • 5
  • Silvia Proietti
    • 6
  • Theodoros Tokas
    • 7
  • Guido Kamphuis
    • 8
  • Giovanni Tripepi
    • 9
  • Ben Van Cleynenbreugel
    • 10
  • Ali Gozen
    • 11
  • Alberto Breda
    • 12
  • Joan Palou
    • 12
  • Kemal Sarica
    • 13
  • Evangelos Liatsikos
    • 14
  • Kamran Ahmed
    • 15
  • Bhaskar K. Somani
    • 16
  • ESU Training Group
  1. 1.Department of Urology and Kidney TransplantGOMReggio CalabriaItaly
  2. 2.Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of MedicineUniversity of MinhoBragaPortugal
  3. 3.ICVS/3B’S, PT Government Associate LaboratoryBragaPortugal
  4. 4.Department of UrologyHofstra University School of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  5. 5.Athens Medical CenterAthensGreece
  6. 6.Department of UrologySan Raffaele Hospital, Ville Turro DivisionMilanItaly
  7. 7.Department of Urology and AndrologyGeneral Hospital Hall in TirolInnsbruckAustria
  8. 8.Academisch Medisch CentrumAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  9. 9.Centro Nazionale Ricerca IFC, U.O. of NephrologyReggio CalabriaItaly
  10. 10.Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital Gasthuisberg, Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  11. 11.Department of Urology, Klinikum HeilbronnHeilbronnGermany
  12. 12.Department of UrologyFundació Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  13. 13.Department of UrologyDr. Lütfi Kǵrdar Kartal Research and Training HospitalIstanbulTurkey
  14. 14.Department of UrologyUniversity of PatrasPatrasGreece
  15. 15.Department of UrologyGuy’s HospitalLondonUK
  16. 16.Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation TrustSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations