Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Procedural Teaching

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Medical Education in Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine

Part of the book series: Respiratory Medicine ((RM))

Abstract

The ability to successfully and safely perform a range of invasive procedures is central to the role of a pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) physician, but for those PCCM physicians who interact with trainees, teaching these procedures is also crucial. Traditionally, medical training followed an apprenticeship model – the infamous Halstedian “See one, do one, teach one” approach – that placed little emphasis on structured teaching and learning of procedures. It has become apparent that this approach cannot ensure that learners are competent, and a number of licensing bodies now require that postgraduate medical trainees be assessed as competent in performing specific procedures prior to graduation. In this chapter, the educational theories that underpin procedural teaching and the evidence for approaches to teaching procedures in PCCM will be reviewed. Then, because it is tightly linked to teaching a procedure, assessment of trainee procedural competence will be discussed. Finally, best practices for both procedural teaching and assessment will be presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Kaufman DM, Mann KV. Teaching and learning in medical education: how theory can inform practice. In: Swanwick T, editor. Underst Med Educ [Internet]. 2nd ed. 2010. p. 16–36. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444320282.ch2.

  2. Morris C, Blaney D. Work-based learning. In: Swanwick T, editor. Understanding medical education. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2014. p. 97–109.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Simpson EJ. The classification of educational objectives in the psychomotor domain. Education [Internet]. 1972;3(3):43–56. Available from: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED010368.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sawyer T, White M, Zaveri P, Chang T, Ades A, French H, et al. Learn, see, practice, prove, do, maintain: an evidence-based pedagogical framework for procedural skill training in medicine. Acad Med. 2015;90(8):1025–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carraccio CL, Benson BJ, Nixon LJ, Derstine PL. From the educational bench to the clinical bedside: translating the Dreyfus developmental model to the learning of clinical skills. Acad Med. 2008;83(8):761–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Buscombe C. Using Gagne’s theory to teach procedural skills. Clin Teach. 2013;10(5):302–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. van Merriënboer JJG, Clark RE, de Croock MBM. Blueprints for complex learning: the 4C/ID-model. Educ Technol Res Dev [Internet]. 2002;50(2):39–61. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF02504993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rossettini G, Rondoni A, Palese A, Cecchetto S, Vicentini M, Bettale F, et al. Effective teaching of manual skills to physiotherapy students: a randomised clinical trial. Med Educ. 2017;51(8):826–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Krautter M, Weyrich P, Schultz JH, Buss SJ, Maatouk I, Junger JJ, et al. Effects of peyton’s four-step approach on objective performance measures in technical skills training: a controlled trial. Teach Learn Med. 2011;23(3):244–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Roberts NK, Williams RG, Kim MJ, Dunnington GL. The briefing, intraoperative teaching, debriefing model for teaching in the operating room. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:299–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Timberlake MD, Mayo HG, Scott L, Weis J, Gardner AK. What do we know about intraoperative teaching? Ann Surg [Internet]. 2017;266(2):251–9. Available from: http://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00000658-201708000-00010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Konrad C, Schüpfer G, Wietlisbach M, Gerber H. Learning manual skills in anesthesiology: is there a recommended number of cases for anesthetic procedures? Anesth Analg [Internet]. 1998;86(3):635–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9495429.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sznajder JI, Zveibil FR, Bitterman H, Weiner P, Bursztein S. Central vein catheterization. Failure and complication rates by three percutaneous approaches. Arch Intern Med. 1986;146(2):259–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Roux D, Reignier J, Thiery G, Boyer A, Hayon J. Acquiring procedural skills in ICUs: a Prospective Multicenter Study.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Barsuk JH, Cohen ER, Feinglass J, McGaghie WC, Wayne DB. Residents’ Procedural Experience Does Not Ensure Competence: A Research Synthesis. J Grad Med Educ [Internet]. 2017;9(2):201–8. Available from: http://www.jgme.org/doi/10.4300/JGME-D-16-00426.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ricotta DN, Smith CC, McSparron JI, Chaudhry SI, McDonald FS, Huang G. When old habits train a new generation: findings from a national survey of internal medicine program directors on procedural training. Am J Med Qual. 2018;33(4):383–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mourad M, Ranji S, Sliwka D. A randomized controlled trial of the impact of a teaching procedure service on the training of internal medicine residents.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Smith CC, Gordon CE, Feller-Kopman D, Huang GC, Weingart SN, Davis RB, et al. Creation of an innovative inpatient medical procedure service and a method to evaluate house staff competency.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Tukey MH, Wiener RS. The impact of a medical procedure service on patient safety, procedure quality and resident training opportunities. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29:485–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lenhard A, Moallem M, Marrie RA, Becker J, Garland A. An intervention to improve procedure education for internal medicine residents. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:288–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cohen ER, Barsuk JH, Moazed F, Caprio T, Didwania A, McGaghie WC, et al. Making July safer: simulation-based mastery learning during intern boot cAMP. Acad Med. 2013;88(2):233–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Barsuk JH, McGaghie WC, Cohen ER, O’Legary KJ, Wayne DB, Webster A. Simulation-based mastery learning reduces complications during central venous catheter insertion in a medical intensive care unit*.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mcgaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Barsuk JH, Wayne DB. A critical review of simulation-based mastery learning with translational outcomes. Med Educ. 2014;48:375–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Barsuk JH, Cohen ER, Feinglass J, Kozmic SE, McGaghie WC, Ganger D, et al. Cost savings of performing paracentesis procedures at the bedside after simulation-based education.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Barsuk JH, Cohen ER, Caprio T, Mcgaghie WC, Simuni T, Wayne DB. Simulation-based education with mastery learning improves residents’ lumbar puncture skills.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gardner AK, Jabbour IJ, Williams BH, Huerta S. Different goals, different pathways: the role of metacognition and task engagement in surgical skill acquisition. J Surg Educ. 2016;73:61–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Cox SS, Swanson MS. Identification of teaching excellence in operating room and clinic settings. Am J Surg. 2002;183(3):251–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. McSparron JI, Ricotta DN, Moskowitz A, Volpicelli FM, Roberts DH, Schwartzstein RM, et al. The proste: identifying key components of effective procedural teaching. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015;12(2):230–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Morrison EH, Boker JR, Hollingshead J, Prislin MD, Hitchcock MA, Litzelman DK. Reliability and validity of an objective structured teaching examination for generalist resident teachers. Acad Med. 2002;77:S29–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sheu L, Kogan JR, Hauer KE. How supervisor experience influences trust, supervision, and trainee learning. Acad Med. 2017;92:1320–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Connolly A, Hansen D, Schuler K, Galving SL, Wolfe H. Immediate surgical skills feedback in the operating room using “‘SurF’” cards. J Grad Med Educ [Internet]. 2014.;(December 2014);6:774–8. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-14-00132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Voduc N, Dudek N, Parker CM, Sharma KB, Wood TJ. Development and validation of a bronchoscopy competence assessment tool in a clinical setting. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2016;13:495–501.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mosier JM, Malo J, Sakles JC, Hypes CD, Natt B, Snyder L, et al. The impact of a comprehensive airway management training program for pulmonary and critical care medicine fellows: a three-year experience. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015;12:539–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wass V, Van der Vleuten C, Shatzer J, Jones R. Assessment of clinical competence. Lancet. 2001;357:945–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Fenwick T, Parsons J. The Art of Evaluation: a resource for educators and trainers. 2nd ed. Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Messick S. Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessment. Educ Meas Issues Pract [Internet]. 1995 Dec 19 [cited 2017 Oct 31];14(4):5–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.1995.tb00881.x.

  37. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Sullivan GM. A primer on the validity of assessment instruments. J Grad Med Educ [Internet]. 2011;3(2):119–20. Available from. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-11-00075.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Cook DA, Beckman TJ. Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. Am J Med. 2006;119:166.e7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Cook DA, Brydges R, Ginsburg S, Hatala R. A contemporary approach to validity arguments: a practical guide to Kane’s framework. Med Educ. 2015;49(6):560–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Taras M. Assessment – summative and formative – some theoretical reflections. Br J Educ Stud [Internet]. 2005 Dec [cited 2017 Oct 27];53(4):466–78. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00307.x.

  42. Hargreaves E. Assessment for learning? Thinking outside the (black) box. Camb J Educ [Internet]. 2005 June [cited 2017 Oct 27];35(2):213–24. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640500146880.

  43. Van Der Vleuten CPM. The assessment of professional competence: developments, research and practical implications. Adv Heal Sci Educ [Internet]. 1996 Jan [cited 2017 Oct 31];1(1):41–67. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24178994.

  44. Van Der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT. Assessing professional competence: from methods to programmes. Med Educ. 2005;39:309–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Prideaux D. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine. Curriculum design. BMJ [Internet]. 2003 Feb 1 [cited 2017 Oct 30];326(7383):268–70. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12560283.

  46. Kern DE, Thomas PA, Howard DM, Bass EB. Curriculum development for medical education- a six- step approach. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1999. p. 1–110.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Larsen DP, Butler AC, Roediger HL. Test-enhanced learning in medical education [Internet]. Med Educ. Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2008 [cited 2017 Oct 31]. 42:959–66. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03124.x.

  48. Wormald BW, Schoeman S, Somasunderam A, Penn M. Assessment drives learning: an unavoidable truth? Anat Sci Educ [Internet]. 2009 Oct 1 [cited 2017 Oct 31];2(5):199–204. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.102.

  49. Skinner TAA, Ho L, Touma NJ. Study habits of Canadian urology residents: implications for development of a competence by design curriculum. Can Urol Assoc J [Internet]. 2017 Apr 11 [cited 2018 Jan 8];11(3–4):83–7. Available from: http://www.cuaj.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/4132.

  50. Kromann CB, Jensen ML, Ringsted C. The effect of testing on skills learning. Med Educ [Internet]. 2009 Jan [cited 2017 Oct 31];43(1):21–7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03245.x.

  51. Larsen DP, Butler AC, Aung WY, Corboy JR, Friedman DI, Sperling MR. The effects of test-enhanced learning on long-term retention in AAN annual meeting courses. Neurol Int. 2015 Feb 17 [cited 2018 Jan 8];84(7):748–54. Available from: http://www.neurology.org/cgi/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000001264.

  52. Ma IWY, Zalunardo N, Pachev G, Beran T, Brown M, Hatala R, et al. Comparing the use of global rating scale with checklists for the assessment of central venous catheterization skills using simulation. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2012;17(4):457–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Regehr G, MacRae H, Reznick RK, Szalay D. Comparing the psychometric properties of checklists and global rating scales for assessing performance on an OSCE-format examination. Acad Med [Internet]. 1998 Sep [cited 2017 Oct 31];73(9):993–7. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9759104.

  54. Hodges B, Regehr G, McNaughton N, Tiberius R, Hanson M. OSCE checklists do not capture increasing levels of expertise. Acad Med [Internet]. 1999 Oct [cited 2017 Oct 30];74(10):1129–34. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10536636.

  55. Walzak A, Bacchus M, Schaefer JP, Zarnke K, Glow J, Brass C, et al. Diagnosing technical competence in six bedside procedures: comparing checklists and a global rating scale in the assessment of resident performance. Acad Med. 2015;90:1100–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Ilgen JS, Ma IWY, Hatala R, Cook DA. A systematic review of validity evidence for checklists versus global rating scales in simulation-based assessment. Med Educ. 2015;49(2):161–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Ma IWY, Brindle ME, Ronksley PE, Lorenzetti DL, Sauve RS, Ghali WA. Use of simulation-based education to improve outcomes of central venous catheterization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med. 2011;86(9):1137–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Konge L, Larsen KR, Clementsen P, Arendrup H, Von Buchwald C, Ringsted C. Reliable and valid assessment of clinical bronchoscopy performance. Respiration. 2012;83:53–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Davoudi M, Osann K, Colt HG. Validation of two instruments to assess technical bronchoscopic skill using virtual reality simulation. Respiration. 2008;76:92–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Davoudi M, Colt HG, Osann KE, Lamb CR, Mullon JJ. Endobronchial ultrasound skills and tasks assessment tool: assessing the validity evidence for a test of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration operator skill. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;186:773–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ahmed A, Khan F, Ismail S. Reliability and validity of a tool to assess airway management skills in anesthesia trainees. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018 Feb 8];32(3):333. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27625481.

  62. Hart D, Clinton J, Anders S, Reihsen T, McNeil MA, Rule G, et al. Validation of an assessment tool for field endotracheal intubation. Mil Med [Internet]. 2016 Nov [cited 2018 Feb 8];181(11):e1484–90. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27849480.

  63. Salamonsen M, McGrath D, Steiler G, Ware R, Colt H, Fielding D. A new instrument to assess physician skill at thoracic ultrasound, including pleural effusion markup. Chest [Internet]. 2013 Sept [cited 2018 Jan 8];144(3):930–4. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S001236921360608X.

  64. Ma IWY, Pugh D, Mema B, Brindle ME, Cooke L, Stromer JN. Use of an error-focused checklist to identify incompetence in lumbar puncture performances. Med Educ. 2015;49:1004–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Reznick R, Regehr G, Macrae H, Martin J, Mcculloch W. Testing technical skill via an innovative ‘Bench Station’ examination. Am J Surg. 1997;172(3):226–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    Anna K. Brady

  2. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Rosemary Adamson

Authors
  1. Anna K. Brady
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rosemary Adamson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Patricia A. Kritek

  2. Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA

    Jeremy B. Richards

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Brady, A.K., Adamson, R. (2019). Procedural Teaching. In: Kritek, P., Richards, J. (eds) Medical Education in Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine. Respiratory Medicine. Humana, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10680-5_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10680-5_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-10679-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-10680-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation