• Archives of Plastic Surgery
• /
• v.43 no.5
• /
• pp.451-456
• /
• 2016

Background Comprehensive aesthetic surgery training continues to be a challenge for residency programs. Our residency program developed a rhinoplasty-based objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) based upon validated methods as part of the residency education curriculum. We report our experience with the rhinoplasty-based OSCE and offer guidance to its incorporation within residency programs. Methods The encounter involved resident evaluation and operative planning for a standardized patient desiring a rhinoplasty procedure. Validated OSCE methods currently used at our medical school were implemented. Residents were evaluated on appropriate history taking, physical examination, and explanation to the patient of treatment options. Examination results were evaluated using analysis of variance (statistical significance P<0.05). Results Twelve residents completed the rhinoplasty OSCE. Medical knowledge assessment showed increasing performance with clinical year, 50% versus 84% for postgraduate year 3 and 6, respectively (P<0.005). Systems-based practice scores showed that all residents incorrectly submitted forms for billing and operative scheduling. All residents confirmed that the OSCE realistically represents an actual patient encounter. All faculty confirmed the utility of evaluating resident performance during the OSCE as a useful assessment tool for determining the Next Accreditation System Milestone level. Conclusions Aesthetic surgery training for residents will require innovative methods for education. Our examination showed a program-educational weakness in billing/coding, an area that will be improved upon by topic-specific lectures. A thoroughly developed OSCE can provide a realistic educational opportunity to improve residents' performance on the nonoperative aspects of rhinoplasty and should be considered as an adjunct to resident education.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.7 no.7
• /
• pp.114-123
• /
• 2007

The increasing use of computed tomography (CT) as a diagnostic tool creates the need from and efficient means of evaluating the performance of the CT scanner now in use. Accordingly, acceptance testing and quality assurance of CT is of great importance. The aim of this study is to analyze of AAPM CT performance phantom in the CT accreditation program. The modular phantom offers the CT system with which to measure eight performance parameters. The parameters are listed of CT attenuation coefficient of water, noise, uniformity, spatial resolution, contrast resolution, slice thickness (5 and 10 mm), artifacts and alignment. The phantom evaluation was done by two radiologists. The acceptance testing protocol described here in demonstrates the successful of the guidelines for the quality assurance using AAPM CT performance phantom. We need to be upgraded for the CT image quality and make the standard reference of the quality assurance in the CT.

• Korean Journal of Clinical Laboratory Science
• /
• v.36 no.1
• /
• pp.13-18
• /
• 2004

This study was designed to establish working range for reoportable range in own laboratory in order to cover the upper and lower limits of the range in test method. We experimented ten times during 10 days for setting of reportable range with between run for method evaluation. It is generally assumed that the analytical method produces a linear response and that the test results between those upper and lower limits are then reportable. CLIA recommends that laboratories verify the reportable range of all moderate and high complexity tests. The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments(CLIA) and Laboratory Accreditation Program of the Korean Society for Laboratory Medicine states reportable range is only required for "modified" moderately complex tests. Linearity requirements have been eliminated from the CLIA regulations and from others accreditation agencies, many inspectors continue to feel that linearity studies are a part of good lab practice and should be encouraged. It is important to assess the useful reportable range of a laboratory method, i.e., the lowest and highest test results that are reliable and can be reported. Manufacturers make claims for the reportable range of their methods by stating the upper and lower limits of the range. Instrument manufacturers state an operating range and a reportable range. The commercial linearity material can be used to verify this range, if it adequately covers the stated linear interval. CLIA requirements for quality control, must demonstrate that, prior to reporting patient test results, it can obtain the performance specifications for accuracy, precision, and reportable range of patient test results, comparable to those established by the manufacturer. If applicable, the laboratory must also verify the reportable range of patient test results. The reportable range of patient test results is the range of test result values over which the laboratory can establish or verify the accuracy of the instrument, kit or test system measurement response. We need to define the usable reportable range of the method so that the experiments can be properly planned and valid data can be collected. The reportable range is usually defined as the range where the analytical response of the method is linear with respect to the concentration of the analyte being measured. In conclusion, experimental results on reportable range using concentrated control sample and zero calibrators covering from highest to lowest range were salicylate $8.8{\mu}g/dL$, phenytoin $0.67{\mu}g/dL$, phenobarbital $1.53{\mu}g/dL$, primidone $0.16{\mu}g/dL$, theophylline $0.2{\mu}g/dL$, vancomycine $1.3{\mu}g/dL$, valproic acid $3.2{\mu}g/dL$, digitoxin 0.17ng/dL, carbamazepine $0.36{\mu}g/dL$ and acetaminophen $0.7{\mu}g/dL$ at minimum level and salicylate $969.9{\mu}g/dL$, phenytoin $38.1{\mu}g/dL$, phenobarbital $60.4{\mu}g/dL$, primidone $24.57{\mu}g/dL$, theophylline $39.2{\mu}g/dL$, vancomycine $83.65{\mu}g/dL$, valproic acid $147.96{\mu}g/dL$, digitoxin 5.04ng/dL, carbamazepine $19.76{\mu}g/dL$, acetaminophen $300.92{\mu}g/dL$ at maximum level.