Introduction: A trauma resuscitation is dynamic and complex process in which failures could lead to serious adverse events. In several trauma centers, evaluation of trauma resuscitation is part of a hospital's quality assessment program. While video analysis is commonly used, some hospitals use live observations, mainly due to ethical and medicolegal concerns. The aim of this study was to compare the validity and reliability of video analysis and live observations to evaluate trauma resuscitations. Methods: In this prospective observational study, validity was assessed by comparing the observed adherence to 28 advanced trauma life support (ATLS) guideline related tasks by video analysis to life observations. Interobserver reliability was assessed by calculating the intra class coefficient of observed ATLS related tasks by live observations and video analysis. Results: Eleven simulated and thirteen real-life resuscitations were assessed. Overall, the percentage of observed ATLS related tasks performed during simulated resuscitations was 10.4% (P < 0.001) higher when the same resuscitations were analysed using video compared to live observations. During real-life resuscitations, 8.7% (p < 0.001) more ATLS related tasks were observed using video review compared to live observations. In absolute terms, a mean of 2.9 (during simulated resuscitations) respectively 2.5 (during actual resuscitations) ATLS-related tasks per resuscitation were not identified using live observers, that were observed through video analysis. The interobserver variability for observed ATLS related tasks was significantly higher using video analysis compared to live observations for both simulated (video analysis: ICC 0.97; 95% CI 0.97-0.98 vs. live observation: ICC 0.69; 95% CI 0.57-0.78) and real-life witnessed resuscitations (video analyse 0.99; 95% CI 0.99-1.00 vs live observers 0.86; 95% CI 0.83-0.89). Conclusion: Video analysis of trauma resuscitations may be more valid and reliable compared to evaluation by live observers. These outcomes may guide the debate to justify video review instead of live observations.
Why a position statement on Assessment in Physical Education? The purpose of this AIESEP Position Statement on Assessment in Physical Education (PE) is fourfold: • To advocate internationally for the importance of assessment practices as central to providing meaningful, relevant and worthwhile physical education; • To advise the field of PE about assessment-related concepts informed by research and contemporary practice; • To identify pressing research questions and avenues for new research in the area of PE assessment; • To provide a supporting rationale for colleagues who wish to apply for research funds to address questions about PE assessment or who have opportunities to work with or influence policy makers. The main target groups for this position statement are PE teachers, PE pre-service teachers, PE curriculum officers, PE teacher educators, PE researchers, PE administrators and PE policy makers. How was this position statement created? The AIESEP specialist seminar ‘Future Directions in PE Assessment’ was held from October 18-20 2018, at Fontys University of Applied Sciences in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. The seminar aimed to bring together leading scholars in the field to present and discuss ‘evidence-informed’ views on various topics around PE assessment. It brought together 71 experts from 20 countries (see appendix 2) to share research on PE assessment via keynote lectures and research presentations and to discuss assessment-related issues in interactive sessions. Input from this meeting informed a first draft version of the statement. This first draft was sent to all participants of the specialist seminar for feedback, from which a second draft was created. This draft was presented at the AIESEP International Conference 2019 in Garden City, New York, after which further feedback was collected from participants both on site and through an online survey. The main contributors to the writing of the position statement are mentioned in appendix 1. Approval was granted by the AIESEP Board on May 7th, 2020. Largely in keeping with the main themes of the AIESEP specialist seminar ‘Future Directions in PE Assessment’, this Position Statement is divided into the following sections: Assessment Literacy; Accountability & Policy; Instructional Alignment; Assessment for Learning; Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) and Continuing Professional Development; Digital Technology in PE Assessment. These sections are preceded by a brief overview of research data on PE. The statement concludes with directions for future research.
Background: Cervical dystonia is characterized by involuntary muscle contractions of the neck and abnormal head positions that affect daily life activities and social life of patients. Patients are usually treated with botulinum toxin injections into affected neck muscles to relief pain and improve control of head postures. In addition, many patients are referred for physical therapy to improve their ability to perform activities of daily living. A recent review on allied health interventions in cervical dystonia showed a lack of randomized controlled intervention studies regarding the effectiveness of physical therapy interventions.Methods/design: The (cost-) effectiveness of a standardized physical therapy program compared to regular physical therapy, both as add-on treatment to botulinum toxin injections will be determined in a multi-centre, single blinded randomized controlled trial with 100 cervical dystonia patients. Primary outcomes are disability in daily functioning assessed with the disability subscale of the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes are pain, severity of dystonia, active range of motion of the head, quality of life, anxiety and depression. Data will be collected at baseline, after six months and one year by an independent blind assessor just prior to botulinum toxin injections. For the cost effectiveness, an additional economic evaluation will be performed with the costs per quality adjusted life-year as primary outcome parameter.Discussion: Our study will provide new evidence regarding the (cost-) effectiveness of a standardized, tailored physical therapy program for patients with cervical dystonia. It is widely felt that allied health interventions, including physical therapy, may offer a valuable supplement to the current therapeutic options. A positive outcome will lead to a greater use of the standardized physical therapy program. For the Dutch situation a positive outcome implies that the standardized physical therapy program forms the basis for a national treatment guideline for cervical dystonia.Trial registration: Number Dutch Trial registration (Nederlands Trial Register): NTR3437.
