![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
Objective: Safety with non-anaesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation (NAAP) during gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is related to theoretical knowledge. A summative testing of knowledge before attempting supervised nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) in the clinic is advised. The aims of this study were to develop a theoretical test about propofol sedation, to gather validity evidence for the test and to measure the effect of a NAPS-specific training course.
Material and methods: A three-phased psychometric study on multiple choice questionnaire (MCQ) test development, gathering of validity evidence and evaluation of the effect of a specific NAAP course on the test result. A MCQ containing 86 questions was developed and administered 113 times to 91 participants representing novices, intermediates and experienced.
Results: Question difficulty analyses revealed 50 level I and II questions. The 50 MCQs showed mean (SD) intergroup differences (p = 0.001) between novices = 28.6 (4.82), intermediates = 36.8 (5.43) and experienced = 41.8 (4.65) and provided a pass score of 35.2. The course with pre-course test had significant effect on the knowledge of nurses (18% increase) and physicians (19% increase; p = 0.001 and 0.001, respectively).
Conclusions: Data supported the validity of the developed MCQ test. The NAPS-specific course with pre-course testing adds theoretical knowledge to already well-prepared participants.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the staff at Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation for collecting data. They also thank the 11 anaesthesiologists for providing data and Arvid Nilssons Foundation for their financial aid. The sponsors did not have any saying in the conduction of the study or the interpretation of the results.
Disclosure statement
The authors report no conflicts of interests.