The use of standardized patients for mock oral board exams in neurology: a pilot study

BACKGROUND: Mock oral board exams, fashioned after the live patient hour of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology exam, are commonly part of resident assessment during residency training. Exams using real patients selected from clinics or hospitals are not standardized and do not allow comparisons of resident performance across the residency program. We sought to create a standardized patient mock oral board exam that would allow comparison of residents' clinical performance. METHODS: Three cases were created and then used for this mock oral boards exercise utilizing trained standardized patients. Residents from the University of Cincinnati and Indiana University participated in the exam. Residents were scored by attending physician examiners who directly observed the encounter with the standardized patient. The standardized patient also assessed each resident. A post-test survey was administered to ascertain participant's satisfaction with the examination process. RESULTS: Resident scores were grouped within one standard deviation of the mean, with the exception of one resident who was also subjectively felt to "fail" the exam. In exams with two faculty "evaluators", scores were highly correlated. The survey showed satisfaction with the examination process in general. CONCLUSION: Standardized patients can be used for mock oral boards in the live patient format. Our initial experience with this examination process was positive. Further testing is needed to determine if this examination format is more reliable and valid than traditional methods of assessing resident competency

Meta-omics approaches to understand and improve wastewater treatment systems

Biological treatment of wastewaters depends on microbial processes, usually carried out by mixed microbial communities. Environmental and operational factors can affect microorganisms and/or impact microbial community function, and this has repercussion in bioreactor performance. Novel high-throughput molecular methods (metagenomics, metatranscriptomics, metaproteomics, metabolomics) are providing detailed knowledge on the microorganisms governing wastewater treatment systems and on their metabolic capabilities. The genomes of uncultured microbes with key roles in wastewater treatment plants (WWTP), such as the polyphosphate-accumulating microorganism Candidatus Accumulibacter phosphatis, the nitrite oxidizer Candidatus Nitrospira defluvii or the anammox bacterium Candidatus Kuenenia stuttgartiensis are now available through metagenomic studies. Metagenomics allows to genetically characterize full-scale WWTP and provides information on the lifestyles and physiology of key microorganisms for wastewater treatment. Integrating metagenomic data of microorganisms with metatranscriptomic, metaproteomic and metabolomic information provides a better understanding of the microbial responses to perturbations or environmental variations. Data integration may allow the creation of predictive behavior models of wastewater ecosystems, which could help in an improved exploitation of microbial processes. This review discusses the impact of meta-omic approaches on the understanding of wastewater treatment processes, and the implications of these methods for the optimization and design of wastewater treatment bioreactors.Research was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science (Contract Project CTQ2007-64324 and CONSOLIDER-CSD 2007-00055) and the Regional Government of Castilla y Leon (Ref. VA038A07). Research of AJMS is supported by the European Research Council (Grant 323009

Physician Surveys to Assess Customary Care in Medical Malpractice Cases

OBJECTIVE: Physician experts hired and prepared by the litigants provide most information on standard of care for medical malpractice cases. Since this information may not be objective or accurate, we examined the feasibility and potential value of surveying community physicians to assess standard of care. DESIGN: Seven physician surveys of mutually exclusive groups of randomly selected physicians. SETTING: Iowa. PARTICIPANTS: Community and academic primary care physicians and relevant specialists. INTERVENTIONS: Included in each survey was a case vignette of a primary care malpractice case and key quotes from medical experts on each side of the case. Surveyed physicians were asked whether the patient should have been referred to a specialist for additional evaluation. The 7 case vignettes included 3 closed medical malpractice cases, 3 modifications of these cases, and 1 active case. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-three percent of 350 community primary care physicians and 51% of 216 community specialists completed the questionnaire. For 3 closed cases, 47%, 78%, and 88% of primary care physician respondents reported that they would have made a different referral decision than the defendant. Referral percentages were minimally affected by modifying patient outcome but substantially changed by modifying patient presentation. Most physicians, even those whose referral decisions were unusual, assumed that other physicians would make similar referral decisions. For each case, at least 65% of the primary care physicians disagreed with the testimony of one of the expert witnesses. In the active case, the response rate was high (71%), and the respondents did not withhold criticism of the defendant doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Randomly selected peer physicians are willing to participate in surveys of medical malpractice cases. The surveys can be used to construct the distribution of physician self-reported practice relevant to a particular malpractice case. This distribution may provide more information about customary practice or standard of care than the opinion of a single physician expert