Modification of an OSCE format to enhance patient continuity in a high-stakes assessment of clinical performance

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Traditional Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) are psychometrically sound but have the limitation of fragmenting complex clinical cases into brief stations. We describe a pilot study of a modified OSCE that attempts to balance a typical OSCE format with a semblance of a continuous, complex, patient case.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Two OSCE scenarios were developed. Each scenario involved a single standardized patient and was subdivided into three sequential 10 minute sections that assessed separate content areas and competencies. Twenty Canadian PGY-4 internal medicine trainees were assessed by trained examiner pairs during each OSCE scenario. Paired examiners rated participant performance independent of each other, on each section of each scenario using a validated global rating scale. Inter-rater reliabilities and Pearson correlations between ratings of the 3 sections of each scenario were calculated. A generalizability study was conducted. Participant and examiner satisfaction was surveyed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was no main effect of section or scenario. Inter-rater reliability was acceptable. The g-coefficient was 0.68; four scenarios would achieve 0.80. Moderate correlations between sections of a scenario suggest a possible halo effect. The majority of examiners and participants felt that the modified OSCE provided a sense of patient continuity.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The modified OSCE provides another approach to the assessment of clinical performance. It attempts to balance the advantages of a traditional OSCE with a sense of patient continuity.</p

Who is teaching and supervising our junior residents' central venous catheterizations?

Article deposited according to agreement with BMC, December 6, 2010.YesFunding provided by the Open Access Authors Fund

Does physical examination competence correlate with bedside diagnostic acumen? An observational study

Aim: To examine the relationship between a physician's ability to examine a standardized patient (SP) and their ability to correctly identify related clinical findings created with simulation technology. Method: The authors conducted an observational study of 347 candidates during a Canadian national specialty examination at the end of post-graduate internal medicine training. Stations were created that combined physical examination of an SP with evaluation of a related audio-video simulation of a patient abnormality, in the domains of cardiology and neurology. Examiners evaluated a candidate's competence at performing a physical examination of an SP and their accuracy in diagnosing a related audio-video simulation. Results: For the cardiology stations, the correlation between the physical examination scores and recognition of simulation abnormalities was 0.31 (p < 0.01). For the neurology stations, the correlation was 0.27 (p < 0.01). Addition of the simulations identified 18% of 197 passing candidates on the cardiology stations and 17% of 240 passing candidates on the neurology stations who were competent in their physical examination technique but did not achieve the passing score for diagnostic skills. Conclusions: Assessments incorporating SPs without physical findings may need to include other methodologies to assess bedside diagnostic acumen

Assessing the relationship between cardiac physical examination technique and accurate bedside diagnosis during an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE)

Many standardized patient (SP) encounters employ SPs without physical findings and, thus, assess physical examination technique. The relationship between technique, accurate bedside diagnosis, and global competence in physical examination remains unclear. Twenty-eight internists undertook a cardiac physical examination objective structured clinical examination, using three modalities: real cardiac patients (RP), "normal" SPs combined with related cardiac audio-video simulations, and a cardiology patient simulator (CPS). Two examiners assessed physical examination technique and global bedside competence. Accuracy of cardiac diagnosis was scored separately. The correlation coefficients between participants' physical examination technique and diagnostic accuracy were 0.39 for RP (P < .05), 0.29 for SP, and 0.30 for CPS. Patient modality impacted the relative weighting of technique and diagnostic accuracy in the determination of global competence. Assessments of physical examination competence should evaluate both technique and diagnostic accuracy. Patient modality affects the relative contributions of each outcome towards a global rating

Tinzaparin vs warfarin for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism in patients with active cancer: A randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE Low-molecular-weight heparin is recommended over warfarin for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with active cancer largely based on results of a single, large trial. OBJECTIVE To study the efficacy and safety of tinzaparin vs warfarin for treatment of acute, symptomatic VTE in patients with active cancer. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS A randomized, open-label study with blinded central adjudication of study outcomes enrolled patients in 164 centers in Asia, Africa, Europe, and North, Central, and South America between August 2010 and November 2013. Adult patients with active cancer (defined as histologic diagnosis of cancer and receiving anticancer therapy or diagnosed with, or received such therapy, within the previous 6 months) and objectively documented proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism, with a life expectancy greater than 6 months and without contraindications for anticoagulation, were followed up for 180 days and for 30 days after the last study medication dose for collection of safety data. INTERVENTIONS Tinzaparin (175 IU/kg) once daily for 6 months vs conventional therapy with tinzaparin (175 IU/kg) once daily for 5 to 10 days followed by warfarin at a dose adjusted to maintain the international normalized ratio within the therapeutic range (2.0-3.0) for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary efficacy outcome was a composite of centrally adjudicated recurrent DVT, fatal or nonfatal pulmonary embolism, and incidental VTE. Safety outcomes included major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, and overall mortality. RESULTS Nine hundred patients were randomized and included in intention-to-treat efficacy and safety analyses. Recurrent VTE occurred in 31 of 449 patients treated with tinzaparin and 45 of 451 patients treated with warfarin (6-month cumulative incidence, 7.2% for tinzaparin vs 10.5% for warfarin; hazard ratio [HR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.41-1.03]; P = .07). There were no differences in major bleeding (12 patients for tinzaparin vs 11 patients for warfarin; HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.40-1.99]; P = .77) or overall mortality (150 patients for tinzaparin vs 138 patients for warfarin; HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.85-1.36]; P = .54). A significant reduction in clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was observed with tinzaparin (49 of 449 patients for tinzaparin vs 69 of 451 patients for warfarin; HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.40-0.84]; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with active cancer and acute symptomatic VTE, the use of full-dose tinzaparin (175 IU/kg) daily compared with warfarin for 6 months did not significantly reduce the composite measure of recurrent VTE and was not associated with reductions in overall mortality or major bleeding, but was associated with a lower rate of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Further studies are needed to assess whether the efficacy outcomes would be different in patients at higher risk of recurrent VTE