TY - JOUR
T1 - Training for Norplant implant removal
T2 - Assessment of learning curves and competency
AU - Blumenthal, Paul D.
AU - Gaffikin, Lynne
AU - Affandi, Biran
AU - Bongiovanni, Annette
AU - McGrath, John
AU - Glew, Gwen
PY - 1997/2
Y1 - 1997/2
N2 - Objective: To determine the learning curves and rapidity with which clinicians become competent in implant removal using two Norplant removal techniques. Methods: Twenty-four physicians, none of whom were experienced in the use of Norplant implants, were randomly assigned to learn either the 'U' removal technique or the standard technique. The physicians in the two groups received identical training in all other respects. Each physician then performed ten supervised removals. Removal times, procedure problem rates, and the number of procedures performed by the clinicians before they were judged 'competent' were assessed for both groups. Results: Data from 240 removals were analyzed. Mean removal times were 38% faster in the 'U' group than in the standard group. None of the 'U' group procedures took longer than 20 minutes, compared with 11% of removals in the standard group (P < .001). The mean number of cases required before the provider consistently performed all steps adequately was significantly (P < .02) higher in the standard group (5.8 cases) than in the 'U' group (3.9 cases). Conclusions: Using competency- based training methods, the 'U' removal technique was learned easily by inexperienced clinicians. It appears to offer significant improvements in speed and achievement of proficiency over the standard technique recommended by the manufacturer. Large-scale programs should consider using competency- based training and the 'U' technique as the removal method of choice when providing training in implant removal.
AB - Objective: To determine the learning curves and rapidity with which clinicians become competent in implant removal using two Norplant removal techniques. Methods: Twenty-four physicians, none of whom were experienced in the use of Norplant implants, were randomly assigned to learn either the 'U' removal technique or the standard technique. The physicians in the two groups received identical training in all other respects. Each physician then performed ten supervised removals. Removal times, procedure problem rates, and the number of procedures performed by the clinicians before they were judged 'competent' were assessed for both groups. Results: Data from 240 removals were analyzed. Mean removal times were 38% faster in the 'U' group than in the standard group. None of the 'U' group procedures took longer than 20 minutes, compared with 11% of removals in the standard group (P < .001). The mean number of cases required before the provider consistently performed all steps adequately was significantly (P < .02) higher in the standard group (5.8 cases) than in the 'U' group (3.9 cases). Conclusions: Using competency- based training methods, the 'U' removal technique was learned easily by inexperienced clinicians. It appears to offer significant improvements in speed and achievement of proficiency over the standard technique recommended by the manufacturer. Large-scale programs should consider using competency- based training and the 'U' technique as the removal method of choice when providing training in implant removal.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031080999&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S0029-7844(96)00484-X
DO - 10.1016/S0029-7844(96)00484-X
M3 - Article
C2 - 9015016
AN - SCOPUS:0031080999
SN - 0029-7844
VL - 89
SP - 174
EP - 178
JO - Obstetrics and Gynecology
JF - Obstetrics and Gynecology
IS - 2
ER -