Rigorous assessment of medical knowledge and technical skill inspires learning, reinforces confidence, and reassures the public. Identifying curricular effectiveness using objective measures of learning is therefore crucial for competency-oriented program development in a learner-centric educational environment. The aim of this study was to determine whether various measures of learning, including class-averagenormalized gain, can be used to assess the effectiveness of a one-day introductory bronchoscopy course curriculum.
Methods
We conducted a quasi-experimental one-group pre-test/post-test study at the University of California, Irvine. The group comprised 24 first-year pulmonary and critical care trainees from eight training institutions in southern California. Class-average normalized gain, single-student normalized gain, absolute gain, and relative gain were used as objective measures of cognitive knowledge and bronchoscopy technical skill learning. A class-average normalized gain of 30% was used to determine curricular effectiveness. Perceived educational value using Likert-scale surveys and post-course questionnaires was determined during and 3 months after course participation.
Results
Mean test scores of cognitive knowledge improved significantly from 48 to 66% (p = 0.043). Absolute gain for the class was 18%, relative gain was 37%, classaverage normalized gain 〈g〉 was 34%, and the average of thesingle-student normalized gains g(ave) was 29%. Mean test scores of technical skill improved significantly from 43 to 77% (p = 0.017). Absolute gain was 34%, relative gain was 78%, classaverage normalized gain 〈g〉 was 60%, and the average of thesingle-student normalized gains g(ave) was 59%. Statistically significant improvements in absolute gain were noted in all five elements of technical skill (p < 0.05). Likert-scale surveys, questionnaires, and surveys demonstrated strong perceived educational value.
Conclusion
The effectiveness of a one-day introductory bronchoscopy curriculum was demonstrated using a pre-test/post-test model with calculation of normalized gain and related metrics.
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00464-010-1161-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Learning bronchoscopy in the clinical setting promotes learner anxiety, exposes patients to the burden of procedure-related education [1], and results in a highly variable learning experience [2]. Clinical responsibilities often interfere with reading bronchoscopy-related material, and, in the absence of periodic assessments of bronchoscopic knowledge, trainees are unlikely to be compliant with educational endeavors they perceive as optional, especially if there are no pass/fail grading consequences [3]. Furthermore, the current bronchoscopy learning environment is less than ideal for beginners because of concerns for patient safety, fiscal constraints, and an increasing impetus to document procedural competency [4, 5].
Short postgraduate courses comprising lectures and simulation-based hands-on instruction have thus become a popular means for enhancing procedure-related learning [6, 7]. In accordance with continuing medical education (CME) guidelines, these programs identify learner objectives and provide opportunities for feedback from students regarding the perceived quality of the course. Yet, to our knowledge, no study has objectively measured how much knowledge and skill students actually gain as a result of participating in such a program.
Anzeige
It is generally difficult to prove that a learning gain has occurred as a result of an educational intervention. This difficulty is due partly to controversies regarding the comparative use of pre- and post-test assessments and partly because of problems constituting control groups with which studies of an educational intervention can be compared [8‐11]. Causality is also difficult to prove due to the confounding effects of retention and decay, normal maturation, and possible ongoing training [12].
Many educators in biological science, engineering, astronomy, mathematics, and physics have turned to using class-average normalized gain and related metrics to gauge a course’s effectiveness [13‐16]. Class-averagenormalized gain (known as 〈g〉) measures the ratio of a whole group’s performance to the maximum achievable improvement. It is expressed mathematically as a fraction of maximum achievable pre-test/post-test gain [17]. Educators use this measure of performance to diminish the confounding effects of pre-course knowledge and other baseline group characteristics, thereby decreasing the need for a control group [18].
In this study we used a pre-test/post-test model to assess the effectiveness of a one-day introductory bronchoscopy course curriculum. We demonstrated how various metrics of learning, including class-averagenormalized gain, can measure the acquisition of a procedural skill such as bronchoscopy. We hypothesized that the educational intervention would result in significant class and individual student gains in bronchoscopic cognitive knowledge and technical skill.
Methods
Participants
Twenty-four first-year pulmonary and critical care fellows (from now on referred to as students) and four program directors from eight training institutions in southern California participated in this study.
Lectures were structured to reinforce incremental learning using a combination of didactic, interactive, Q/A, and anonymous audience participation techniques. For the small-group learning sessions, the 24 students were randomly divided into five groups that rotated through four technical skill stations (airway anatomy and bronchoscopic inspection, endobronchial brushing and biopsy, transbronchial needle aspiration, and emergent bronchoscopic intubation) and one case scenario, spending 30 min at each station (2.5 h total). Specific learning objectives were designed to keep the students mentally and physically engaged so as to achieve “hands-on and heads-on” learning [13]. Teaching guides were distributed to instructors so that they could function as professional learning coaches rather than as experts merely stating facts and opinions [22].
The 40 best questions were then assigned semirandomly to 24 sets of two tests (items 1–20 for pre-test, and 21–40 for post-test). Using a random numbers table, items were randomly ordered from 1 to 40, 24 consecutive times for the 24 students. Each set of 1–20 and 21–40 was reshuffled to assure that the pre-test and post-test for each student had an equal number of difficult (0.20 < ρ ≤ 0.40), intermediate (0.40 < ρ ≤ 0.60), and easy (0.60 < ρ ≤ 0.80) questions. Tests were normalized for topic-specific questions. For example, among four questions on BAL (bronchoalveolar lavage), two were in the first 20 and two in the second 20 for each of the 24 students. By using this semirandom process, each student received a different test, yet the tests were similar in level of difficulty and material covered. To assure that each student received the two halves of the same test, the tests were marked with random two-letter codes (AA, BB, CC, etc.), printed on each page. The same code was used on the students’ identity badges and skills tests sheets, assuring anonymous processing of all data.
Bronchoscopy technical skills pre-test and post-test score sheet
×
Study protocol
Immediately following on-site registration, each student was asked to complete a short questionnaire about prior experience and perceptions regarding bronchoscopy and simulation. Individual students then underwent technical skill pre-testing, followed by administration of the multiple-choice pre-test (20 min was allowed, although no one needed the allotted time). During the day, students and program directors were asked to rate the educational content and quality of each learning session using a Likert-scale survey instrument. Post-testing was done at the end of the day after course completion. While technical skill post-testing was performed identically, the written post-test consisted of the second half of each student’s specific MCQ test (e.g., student GG received GG-1–20 as pre-test and GG-21–40 as post-test).
Three months after the educational intervention, a four-item questionnaire was emailed to each student, and an independent psychologist research interviewer conducted telephone interviews with the four program directors to inquire about the perceived impact of the course on student performance, perceived weaknesses of the course, and whether the program directors would support similar courses in the future.
Outcome assessments
We hypothesized that participation in this educational intervention 3 months into subspecialty training would result in improved class and individual student learning gains in cognitive knowledge and technical skill. For the purpose of this study, curricular effectiveness was defined as the extent to which the program produced learning gains for the group and for individual students as demonstrated by several metrics of student performance.
A multiple-choice pre-test/post-test model of cognitive knowledge acquisition and a pre-test/post-test time-limited, low-fidelity simulation technical skill exercise were used to identify knowledge and skill gains. Pre-test and post-test scores were compared and the effectiveness of the educational intervention for the group as a whole was determined using a predefined target objective of at least 0.3 for class average normalized gain 〈g〉. This criterion is taken from Hake [13] whose 62-course 〈g〉 data suggested that 〈g〉 = 0.3 (30%) is a lower bound of what he designated as “medium” normalized gain. Individual single-student gi values to identify variability between individuals, and the average of single-student normalized gain, g(ave), were also calculated.
To complement these objective measurements, the program’s perceived educational value was assessed by analyzing qualitative evaluations and Likert-scale survey measurements from each participant on-site and by reviewing results from post-course student questionnaires and recorded interviews of program directors 3 months after the educational intervention. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed on interview transcripts.
To determine the potential reproducibility of study results in a different cohort tested at a similar time period during the course of their subspecialty training (3 months into training), the same curriculum was delivered 1 year later to a fresh group of first-year pulmonary subspecialty trainees invited from the same institutions. Statistical analyses were performed on pre-test/post-test results using the same metrics. The study was considered exempt from UCI Institutional Review Board review.
Anzeige
Statistical methods
This was a quasi-experimental, one-group pre-test/post-test study designed to assess learning gain and effectiveness of this single-day introductory bronchoscopy course curriculum [25]. Paired-samples t test with an α = 0.05 was used to compare pre- and post-test scores, which were also plotted for descriptive purposes. A dissimilar pre-test/post-test study design was used to diminish the biasing effect. Individual actual gains Gi (where Gi = post-test score − pre-test score) were tabulated in order to calculate percent absolute gain (where ∆ = average Gi/maximum score achievable), and percent relative gain, expressed as a percentage (where C = average Gi/pre-test score) for the class. As a measure of course effectiveness, the class average normalized gain 〈g〉 was calculated. The 〈g〉 is defined as the average actual gain divided by the maximum possible gain, where G is the actual gain and 〈%post〉 and 〈%pre〉 are the final (post) and initial (pre) class averages, and the angle brackets “〈… 〉“ indicate an average of the students taking the tests:
where N is the number of trainees taking both the pre- and post-tests. Because of the possibility of post-test scores inferior to pre-test scores (negative gain), g(ave) was also calculated by replacing negative gi with zero and by deleting all negative-gain students. In physics education research, it has been found that the first two averages 〈g〉 and g(ave) are usually the same or within 5% for N > 20 and that this near equality is associated with a low correlation of the single-student gain (or gi) with the single-student pre-test score [13].
Results
Twenty-four of 25 eligible first-year pulmonary and critical care trainees and four program directors from eight training institutions in southern California participated in this study. The director from UCI was not included to avoid obvious bias. Twenty-one students (88%) had assisted in 30 or fewer flexible bronchoscopies; the same percentage envisioned that bronchoscopy was a strong component of their future career. Two thirds (16/24) of the students were exposed to some form of medical simulation during residency training, of which nine had been previously exposed to a bronchoscopy simulator. None of those who had been exposed to medical simulation during residency training (0/16) reported a negative experience.
Anzeige
All 24 students took both the pre-test and the post-test (Fig. 2A, B). Mean test scores of cognitive knowledge improved significantly from 48% (9.6/20 ± 2.58) to 66% (13.2/20 ± 2.53) (p = 0.043). Absolute gain was 18% (3.5/20 ± 3.7) and relative gain was 37% (Fig. 3A). The classaverage normalized gain 〈g〉 was 34%, and the average of thesingle-student normalized gains g(ave) was 29% (SD ± 33) (Table 1).
Fig. 2
A Cognitive learning pre- and post-test score plots showing improvement (positive slopes), no change (horizontal lines), or deterioration (negative slopes); 1 = pre-test, 2 = post-test. Maximum score was 20 for cognitive knowledge assessments. B Technical skill learning pre- and post-test score plots showing improvement (positive slopes), no change (horizontal lines) or deterioration (negative slopes); 1 = pre-test, 2 = post-test. Maximum score was 16 for technical skill assessments
Fig. 3
A Cognitive and technical skill average learning gains with pre- and post-test scores (%) during one-day introductory bronchoscopy course (N = 24). B Average learning gains of five components of bronchoscopy technical skill with pre- and post-test skill scores (%). All changes statistically significant (p < 0.05)
Table 1
Pre- and post-test scores and learning gain (N = 24)
Pre-test scores
Post-test scores
p value
Absolute gain
Relative gain
〈g〉
g(ave)
Cognitive learning
9.6 ± 2.5
13.2 ± 2.5
0.043*
18%
37%
34%a
29% ± 33b
48%
66%
Technical skills learning
6.9 ± 2.9
12.4 ± 3.3
0.017
34%
78%
60%a
59% ± 39c
43%
77%
〈g〉 is the class average normalized gain: 〈g〉 = [〈% post-test〉 − 〈% pre-test〉]/[100% − 〈% pre-test〉]
g(ave) is the average single-student normalized gain: g(ave) = [∑from 1 to N (gi)]/N
* p < 0.05
aRobustness of educational intervention defined if 〈g〉 is greater than 30%
bg(ave) calculated with all negative gi’s replaced by 0 was 35% ± 25 and g(ave) calculated with all negative gi’s ignored was 46% ± 17
cg(ave) calculated with all negative gi’s replaced by 0 was 63% ± 31and g(ave) calculated with all negative gi’s ignored was 68% ± 25
×
×
Mean test scores of technical skill also improved significantly from 43% (6.9/16 ± 2.91) to 77% (12.4/16 ± 3.33) (p = 0.017). Absolute gain for the class was 34% (5.5/16 ± 3.7) and relative gain was 78% (Fig. 3A). The classaverage normalized gain 〈g〉 for technical skills was 60%, and the average of the single-student normalized gains g(ave) was 59% (SD ± 39) (Table 1). Statistically significant absolute gains were noted in all five elements of technical skill (p < 0.05); time (−29%), precision (27%), anatomic recognition (42%), posture/hand position (24%), and economy of movement (42%) (Fig. 3B).
Likert-scale surveys for cognitive learning sessions received mean scores ranging from 4.65/5 to 4.94/5 (5 was the best score attainable). Likert-scale scores for each of the technical skill stations ranged from 4.81/5 to 5/5. Perceptions of the educational program assessed 3 months later were based on a four-item questionnaire. The response rate was 75% (18/24 students). All but one person (17/18) stated they would recommend participation in this course to the following year’s incoming trainees. Almost all (14/18) said the course had a very positive impact on their skills and performance. Fifteen said their senior colleagues in training had shown strong enthusiasm when asked if they would like to participate in a similar course. When asked for suggestions regarding future courses, most (16/18) requested more time at the skill stations or a program lasting more than one day (Table 2).
Table 2
Four-item questionnaire to assess educational value for pulmonary trainees 3 months after course participation (n = 18)
Question
Selected comments
Q-1: How would you rate the impact of the course on your skills and performance since you attended the course 3 months ago?
Good literature reviewa
My skills/confidence improved greatlya
Useful/essential review of information
Good combination of theory and practicala
Good technical skillsa
Q-2: When your senior fellows (2nd and 3rd year) learn about your experience at the course, have they shown enthusiasm for a similar course?
They wished to have this opportunity as first fellowsa
They were enthusiastic/excited about having a potential course for thema
They were annoyed at having to cover for us
They would like to have more education regarding bronchoscopya
Q-3: Would you encourage next year’s 1st year fellows to partake in the program?
It is an excellent teaching and learning opportunity
It was definitely worth the timea
Great way to start an introduction to bronchoscopy before actual proceduresa
Q-4: Do you have any other suggestions?
More than one station for the basic anatomya
Course should be more than one daya
Need to spend more time teaching about the procedures
More hands-on time learning and practicing the basic airway anatomya
aComment repeated by more than 30% of respondents
In their Likert surveys, all four program directors scored each of the cognitive and technical skill stations 5/5 at the time of the course. Follow-up interviews 3 months later revealed unanimity regarding the positive effect of this course on their trainees’ bronchoscopy skills and performance. The directors’ opinions were based on feedback obtained from trainees participating in the course, as well as on direct observation of their trainees’ ability to perform bronchoscopy during the intervening 3 months. When asked if the program had any weaknesses, two said that it was “too-information-dense” for one day and one recommended greater emphasis on bronchial anatomy. All four program directors said they wanted their trainees to attend a similar course the following year.
Anzeige
For the cohort one year later (comprising 18 first-year pulmonary and critical care trainees), baseline knowledge and technical skill were similar to the earlier cohort. All measures of learning gain were again significantly increased, thereby corroborating findings from the initial cohort (Table 3). Mean scores of cognitive knowledge significantly increased from 39% (7.8/20 ± 2.4) to 66% (13.1/20 ± 2.5) (p = 0.021). Absolute gain for the class was 27% (5.3/20 ± 2.9) and relative gain was 69%. No negative gains were noted. The classaverage normalized gain 〈g〉 was 44%. The average of the single-student normalized gains g(ave) was 60% (SD ± 21).
Table 3
Pre-/post-test scores and learning gain for two cohorts
Pre-test scores
Post-test scores
Absolute gain
Relative gain
〈g〉
g(ave)
Cognitive learning
2008 cohort
(N = 24)
9.6 ± 2.5
48%
13.2 ± 2.5
66%
18%
37%
34%a
29%
2009 cohort
(N = 18)
7.8 ± 2.4
39%
13.1 ± 2.5
66%
27%
69%
44%a
43%
Technical skills learning
2008 cohort
(N = 24)
6.9 ± 2.9
43%
12.4 ± 3.3
77%
34%
78%
60%a
63%
2009 cohort
(N = 18)
6.6 ± 3.2
41%
12.2 ± 2.4
76%
35%
85%
60%a
60%
aRobustness of educational intervention defined if 〈g〉 greater than 30%
Mean scores for technical skill also increased significantly from 41% (6.6/16 ± 3.2) to 76% (12.2/16 ± 2.4) (p = 0.015). Absolute gain for the class was 35% (5.6/16 ± 2.9) and relative gain was 85% (Table 3). Again, no negative gains were noted. The classaverage normalized gain 〈g〉 for technical skills was 60%, which, along with the large 〈g〉 for cognitive knowledge, confirmed the effectiveness of the educational intervention. The average of the single-student normalized gains g(ave) was 60% (SD = ±22).
Discussion
The competency-based paradigm is today’s prevalent educational model. It warrants that procedure-related learning should lead to a level of verifiably measurable knowledge and technical skill [27, 28]. From an educator’s perspective, identifying curricular effectiveness using objective measures of student learning that demonstrate gains in knowledge and skill is an important element of competency-oriented program development. Demonstrating learning gain can be viewed as analogous to the number-needed-to-treat metric that is required to prove the efficacy of new therapies [6]. It is often extremely difficult to prove the direct beneficial impact of educational interventions on clinical care. Yet measurements of curricular effectiveness can identify strengths and shortcomings of an educational intervention and help delineate the individual student’s progress along the competency curve between novice, advanced beginner, proficient provider, and competent provider [29].
In this study we used a pre-test/post-test assessment model, several measures of learning gain, Likert-scale analyses, and post-intervention surveys to study the curricular effectiveness and perceived educational value of a one-day course for novice bronchoscopists. The true value of the pre-test/post-test assessment model has been controversial because of the effects of many extraneous variables, including the Hawthorne effect (knowing that one is being tested may affect the results), the halo effect (the human tendency to respond positively or negatively to an instructor), and the practice effect (of a pre-test on a subsequent post-test). These limitations are inherent to most measures of knowledge acquisition in social research. For this reason, quasi-experimental designs are frequently used in education research to evaluate interventions where randomization cannot be performed because of ethical considerations, difficulty with randomization, or small available sample sizes [30]. We thus favored a synthetic design that also involved the integration of numerous variables in order to add to the internal validity of a simple analysis of pre-test/post-test gains [31].
The effectiveness of this curriculum, independent of the study group’s pre-test level of knowledge, was established using measures of class-average normalized gain (〈g〉) and related metrics. This follows a practice in physics education research where it has been shown that 〈g〉 for courses with widely varying average pre-test scores (〈%pre〉) is nearly independent of the pre-test score, being dependent primarily on the effectiveness of the instruction [16]. Weiman and Perkins [32] described the 〈g〉 metric as the fraction of concepts that students master, on average, which they did not already know at the start of the class.
To mitigate the need for a control group, the curriculum and the pre-tests and post-tests were all administered on the same day. It is not plausible that the significant gains seen over such a short time span could have occurred without the intervention. Hence, because of its short duration, our educational intervention was immune to many of the external factors that could otherwise threaten the validity of a single-group pre-test/post-test design, including history, maturation, and testing effect [25]. Furthermore, the baseline knowledge and skill level of a second cohort of novice bronchoscopists one year later was similar to the first, and participation in the course again resulted in significant learning gains in both knowledge and skill.
To diminish the skewing effect of outlier students with very high or very low pre-test scores, we calculated individual single-student normalized gain, where gi = [%post-test − %pre-test]/100% − %pre-test]. This is the actual gain divided by the maximum gain achievable by each student and has been described by McGowan and Davis [33] as “telling us what the student achieved in tests, given what was possible for her (him) to achieve.” The use of the single-student g and its related calculations has received empirical justification as an easy-to-use gauge of course effectiveness in hundreds of classroom teaching and other varying types of courses with different instructors and student populations [15]. In addition, individualized learning needs can potentially be determined by single-student normalized gain assessments. In our study, this performance measure allowed us to document changes in individual scores in addition to explore the overall effectiveness of our one-day curriculum. As expected, we demonstrated that the largest improvements were seen in learners with the lowest pre-test scores (Fig. 2A, B). This is a fairly obvious observation, basically suggesting that those who have more to learn do actually learn more. Yet it provides additional justification for objective measurements of knowledge and skill acquisition in each novice trainee; when an individual’s plotted learning curve does not meet established expectations, remedial intervention may be in order.
Our study has several limitations. First, our curriculum was designed for single-day delivery targeting a small number of participants. This was justified as our objective was to document only learning gain, not procedural competency. It reflects the logistical reality of the difficulties involved in bringing together trainees from eight institutions in southern California. Second, the study was intentionally limited to assess short-term acquisition of knowledge and skills and was not meant to follow the learners’ long-term knowledge and skill retention or decay [34‐36]. Third, despite the use of various skill stations, we focused only on bronchoscopic anatomy and inspection skill acquisition. We had two rationales for this: this is indeed the basis of all bronchoscopic procedures, and a considerable time commitment would have been required to test each participant at every other station. Last, as in many areas of medical education, the impact of this intervention on clinical practice and outcomes is unknown [37, 38]. Patient-related outcomes are generally not an ideal surrogate to demonstrate effectiveness of educational interventions. Despite this, most medical education research is founded on the basic logical assumption that knowledge and skill acquisition eventually leads to improved patient care [6].
Conclusion
It has long been recognized that assessment drives learning and that rigorous assessment inspires learning, reinforces confidence, and reassures the public [39, 40]. In the context of procedure-based training, we submit that the pre-test/post-test model with calculation of various measures of learning gain, including class-average and single-student normalized gains, provides an objective and informative means to document learner performance and demonstrate the effectiveness of the educational intervention. The presence of diverse opinions regarding educational methodologies [41, 42], curricular structure [43], and measures of effectiveness persist [44, 45], necessitating further studies to confirm and build on our findings.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded in part by a grant from the Chest Foundation, California chapter, to Dr. Colt, primary investigator. We thank Drs. Momen Wahidi, Andrew Duke, Cristina Plencovich, Richard Hake, and Steven Downing for their generous input, and our many colleagues at UCI and other southern California training institutions.
Disclosures
Drs. Colt, Davoudi, Murgu, and Zamanian Rohani have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Open AccessThis is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Mit der Zeitschrift Die Chirurgie erhalten Sie zusätzlich Online-Zugriff auf weitere 43 chirurgische Fachzeitschriften, CME-Fortbildungen, Webinare, Vorbereitungskursen zur Facharztprüfung und die digitale Enzyklopädie e.Medpedia.
Bis 30. April 2024 bestellen und im ersten Jahr nur 199 € zahlen!
Nach der Katheterablation von Vorhofflimmern kommt es bei etwa einem Drittel der Patienten zu Rezidiven, meist binnen eines Jahres. Wie sich spätere Rückfälle auf die Erfolgschancen einer erneuten Ablation auswirken, haben Schweizer Kardiologen erforscht.
Schmerzen im Unterbauch, aber sonst nicht viel, was auf eine Appendizitis hindeutete: Ein junger Mann hatte Glück, dass trotzdem eine Laparoskopie mit Appendektomie durchgeführt und der Wurmfortsatz histologisch untersucht wurde.
Derzeit wird empfohlen, eine Therapie mit GLP-1-Rezeptoragonisten präoperativ zu unterbrechen. Eine neue Studie nährt jedoch Zweifel an der Notwendigkeit der Maßnahme.
Die Ureterstriktur ist eine relativ seltene Komplikation, trotzdem bedarf sie einer differenzierten Versorgung. In komplexen Fällen wird dies durch die roboterassistierte OP-Technik gewährleistet. Erste Resultate ermutigen.
Update Chirurgie
Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletterund bleiben Sie gut informiert.
Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.
Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?
Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.
