iView Expert: explicating medical practitioner's expertise.
Research type
Research Study
Full title
iView Expert. Adapting a method from human space flight, civil and military aviation, to explicate medical expertise in complex tasks, for transfer to experienced practitioner
IRAS ID
235482
Contact name
Vivienne Blackhall
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
NHS Highland
Duration of Study in the UK
1 years, 3 months, 1 days
Research summary
We aim to assess the feasibility of adapting a ‘cued recall and debrief’ technique from astronaut training to the medical and surgical training arena.
In both fields, we know that experts in a complex task may have difficulty explaining their thoughts and actions to another, especially during the event. However, using a head mounted camera recording and a non-leading debrief technique, recall by the expert of the whole event can later be elicited in remarkable detail. This can be used to generate a commentary over the video, making their thoughts and actions explicit. This version of the footage may prove more useful to a trainee or a peer than watching the event in real time.
Having been trained by a psychologist experienced with the technique in astronaut training, we have already found the recording and debriefing process feasible in endoscopy, anaesthesia and surgery on a small scale (30 recordings). The debriefed video package was offered to trainees as a learning resource but had poor engagement. Our group now proposes a different study, following Pickering’s model for evaluating technology enhanced learning resources.
Our bank of recordings and debriefs will be built up. Simultaneously, we will complete a wider systematic literature review across all skill domains. We then wish to assess whether there is transfer of expertise (by watching the video debrief) from the expert group to a group of experienced practitioners. We chose experienced practitioners as our target learner group because the benefits of this technique relate to its ability to uncover tips, tricks and nuances of practice which would not be relevant to a novice or beginner group of learners. Indeed, the technique is not supposed to provide a procedural checklist.
We will assess learner satisfaction and learner gain in both groups. We hypothesise that both the experienced practitioner and the expert will learn something from the experience.REC name
West Midlands - Coventry & Warwickshire Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
17/WM/0366
Date of REC Opinion
16 Oct 2017
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion