Thoracentesis is an invasive procedure known to result in complications. Procedure skills should be taught and evaluated more effectively to improve health care quality. Validated checklists are central to teaching and assessing procedural skills. The results of the first step of the validation of a thoracentesis checklist are described. A comprehensive literature review of articles published on thoracentesis did not yield a validated checklist. A modified Delphi technique, involving a panel of 8 interdisciplinary, interinstitutional experts, was used to develop a thoracentesis checklist. The internal consistency coefficient using Cronbach’s α was .94. Developing the 23-item thoracentesis checklist for teaching and assessing thoracentesis is the first step in the validation process. For this checklist to become further validated, it should be implemented and studied in the simulation and clinical environments.
SeneffMGCorwinWGoldLHIrwinRS. Complications associated with thoracentesis. Chest. 1986;89:97-100.
5.
GroganDRIrwinRSChannickR. Complications associated with thoracentesis: a prospective, randomized study comparing three different methods. Arch Intern Med. 1990;150:873-877.
6.
BartterTMayoPDPratterMRSantarelliRJLeedsWMAkersSM. Lower risk and higher yield for thoracentesis when performed by experienced operators. Chest. 1993;103:1873-1876.
7.
DuncanDRMorgenthalerTIRyuJHDanielsCE. Reducing iatrogenic risk in thoracentesis. Chest. 2009;135: 1315-1320.
8.
GordonCEFeller-KopmanDBalkEMSmetanaGW. Pneumothorax following thoracentesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170: 332-336.
9.
FerrieEPCollumNMcGovernS. The right place in the right space? Awareness of site for needle thoracentesis. Emerg Med J. 2005;22:788-789.
10.
KohnLTCorriganJMDonaldsonMS, eds. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2000.
11.
GreinerACKnebelE, eds. Health Professions Education: A Bridge to Quality. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003.
12.
WhitcombME. A bridge to quality health care. Acad Med. 2004;79:615-616.
13.
GawandeA. The checklist. New Yorker. December10, 2007;83:86-95.
14.
EricssonKA. Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med. 2004;79(10 suppl):S70-S81.
15.
WayneDBBarsukJHO’LearyKJFudalaMJMcGaghieWC. Mastery learning of thoracentesis skills by internal medicine residents using simulation technology and deliberate practice. J Hosp Med. 2008;3:48-54.
16.
ShanksDWongRYRobertsJMNairPMaIW. Use of simulator-based medical procedural curriculum: the learner’s perspectives. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:77.
17.
PatelMOosthuizenGChildSWindsorJA. Training effect of skills courses on confidence of junior doctors performing clinical procedures. N Z Med J. 2008;121:37-45.
18.
LenchusJDBarnesSKBirnbachDJ. The impact of a standardized curriculum on reducing thoracentesis-induced pneumothorax. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1176-1177.
19.
LenchusJD. End of the “see one, do one, teach one” era: the next generation of invasive bedside procedural instruction. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2010;110:340-346.
20.
LenchusJIssenbergSBMurphyD. A blended approach to invasive bedside procedural instruction. Med Teach. 2011;33:116-123.
21.
HuangGCNewmanLRSchwartzsteinRM. Procedural competence in internal medicine residents: validity of a central venous catheter insertion assessment instrument. Acad Med. 2009;84:1127-1134.
22.
ClaytonMJ. Delphi: a technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-making tasks in education. Educ Psychol. 1997;17:373-386.
VerheggenMMMuijtjensAMVan OsJSchuwirthLW. Is an Angoff standard an indication of minimal competence of examinees or of judges?Adv Health Sci Educ. 2008;13: 203-211.
