The association between Situational Judgement Test (SJT) scores and professionalism concerns in undergraduate medical education

Introduction: Situational judgement tests (SJTs) are widely used in selecting medical students and doctors. Emerging evidence suggests SJTs are capable of testing an individual’s ability to respond to role-relevant professionalism scenarios, however, evidence is lacking for their use in identifying students with concerning professional behaviours.This study aimed to determine the association between medical student professionalism-based SJT scores and recorded professionalism concerns during training.Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted utilising SJT scores from second-year medical students and occurrences of student professionalism concerns. Concerns were reviewed and mapped to General Medical Council standards. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine associations between SJT scores and professionalism concerns.Results: 247 students were included in the study. For every point increase in SJT score, students were 10% less likely to have multiple professionalism concerns [OR (95% CI) 0.90 (0.83–0.97); p = .007].Students scoring below 1 and 2 standard deviations from the mean score were 4 and 11-times more likely to have multiple concerns [OR (95% CI) 4.52 (1.12–18.25); p = .034] and [OR (95% CI) 11.45 (1.72–76.15); p = .012].Conclusion: Lower SJT scores were significantly associated with an increased risk of professionalism concerns. These findings support the potential for SJT exams to identify medical students that may require closer supervision and remediation during undergraduate education

Accuracy of methods for detecting an irregular pulse and suspected atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Pulse palpation has been recommended as the first step of screening to detect atrial fibrillation. We aimed to determine and compare the accuracy of different methods for detecting pulse irregularities caused by atrial fibrillation. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and LILACS until 16 March 2015. Two reviewers identified eligible studies, extracted data and appraised quality using the QUADAS-2 instrument. Meta-analysis, using the bivariate hierarchical random effects method, determined average operating points for sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR, NLR); we constructed summary receiver operating characteristic plots. Results: Twenty-one studies investigated 39 interventions (n = 15,129 pulse assessments) for detecting atrial fibrillation. Compared to 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG) diagnosed atrial fibrillation, blood pressure monitors (BPMs; seven interventions) and non-12-lead ECGs (20 interventions) had the greatest accuracy for detecting pulse irregularities attributable to atrial fibrillation (BPM: sensitivity 0.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92–1.00), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.88–0.95), PLR 12.1 (95% CI 8.2–17.8) and NLR 0.02 (95% CI 0.00–0.09); non-12-lead ECG: sensitivity 0.91 (95% CI 0.86–0.94), specificity 0.95 (95% CI 0.92–0.97), PLR 20.1 (95% CI 12–33.7), NLR 0.09 (95% CI 0.06–0.14)). There were similar findings for smartphone applications (six interventions) although these studies were small in size. The sensitivity and specificity of pulse palpation (six interventions) were 0.92 (95% CI 0.85–0.96) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.76–0.88), respectively (PLR 5.2 (95% CI 3.8–7.2), NLR 0.1 (95% CI 0.05–0.18)). Conclusions: BPMs and non-12-lead ECG were most accurate for detecting pulse irregularities caused by atrial fibrillation; other technologies may therefore be pragmatic alternatives to pulse palpation for the first step of atrial fibrillation screening

Defining and measuring denigration of general practice in medical education

There is a workforce crisis in NHS general practice (GP). It is estimated that in order to meet future health care needs around 50% of current medical students will need to choose a career in GP. Positive role modelling is an influential factor in medical students’ career choice, but denigration of primary care during medical training may undermine aspirations of students considering GP as a career. This article discusses the importance of medical schools detecting and managing denigration of GP in their curricula and, for the first time, suggests an objective approach to the measurement of denigration. Four facets of what constitutes denigration are discussed and proposed as a collective measure. These are: language used about GP, proportion of curriculum time spent by students in GP, accurate representation of the clinical content of GP and equity of funding between hospital and GP placements. Furthermore, we discuss the key ethical and legal challenges that are faced by medical schools and, indeed, healthcare settings, that need to be overcome to enable proactive measurement and management of denigration

Clinical placements in General Practice: concepts and considerations of implementing remote virtual placements in the COVID world

Medical students are considered as ‘essential workers’ within the National Health Service (NHS) and the delivery of clinical experience is essential to their learning and progression into the workforce. The COVID-19 pandemic impacted on the delivery of clinical placements in Primary care; GPs are currently delivering the majority of consultations using telephone or video methods and difficulties in attaining placement experience are being encountered by medical students. Virtual remote consultations are an appropriate adjunct to conventional face-to-face patient encounters and could facilitate students to attain core learning outcomes. This article describes some of the approaches that enable remote (home) virtual patient encounters in Primary Care for medical students. These are categorised as methods that a) enable remote access into GP clinical systems, b) enable remote access into individual patient consultations and c) enable an observational only experience. Key considerations are highlighted to enable safe and effective implementation of remote virtual consultations, along with the advantages and disadvantages of each method. These include patient consent, confidentiality, data sharing and protection, professionalism, student agreements and data gathering templates. It is hoped that sharing of these methods of virtual consulting will support ongoing delivery of Primary Care education across medical schools

Multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end point trial of the efficacy of allopurinol therapy in improving cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease: protocol of the ALL-HEART study

Introduction Ischaemic heart disease (IHD) is one of the most common causes of death in the UK and treatment of patients with IHD costs the National Health System (NHS) billions of pounds each year. Allopurinol is a xanthine oxidase inhibitor used to prevent gout that also has several positive effects on the cardiovascular system. The ALL-HEART study aims to determine whether allopurinol improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with IHD. Methods and Analysis The ALL-HEART study is a multicentre, controlled, prospective, randomised, open-label blinded end point (PROBE) trial of allopurinol (up to 600 mg daily) versus no treatment in a 1:1 ratio, added to usual care, in 5215 patients aged 60 years and over with IHD. Patients are followed up by electronic record linkage and annual questionnaires for an average of 4 years. The primary outcome is the composite of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or cardiovascular death. Secondary outcomes include all-cause mortality, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of allopurinol. The study will end when 631 adjudicated primary outcomes have occurred. The study is powered at 80% to detect a 20% reduction in the primary end point for the intervention. Patient recruitment to the ALL-HEART study started in February 2014. Ethics and Dissemination The study received ethical approval from the East of Scotland Research Ethics Service (EoSRES) REC 2 (13/ES/0104). The study is event-driven and results are expected after 2019. Results will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific meetings. Results will also be disseminated to guideline committees, NHS organisations and patient groups

Screening for atrial fibrillation – a cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals in primary care

Introduction: Screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) in primary care has been recommended; however, the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) are not known. This study aimed to determine the opinions of HCP about the feasibility of implementing screening within a primary care setting. Methods: A cross-sectional mixed methods census survey of 418 HCPs from 59 inner-city practices (Nottingham, UK) was conducted between October-December 2014. Postal and web-surveys ascertained data on existing methods, knowledge, skills, attitudes, barriers and facilitators to AF screening using Likert scale and open-ended questions. Responses, categorized according to HCP group, were summarized using proportions, adjusting for clustering by practice, with 95% C.Is and free-text responses using thematic analysis. Results: At least one General Practitioner (GP) responded from 48 (81%) practices. There were 212/418 (51%) respondents; 118/229 GPs, 67/129 nurses [50 practice nurses; 17 Nurse Practitioners (NPs)], 27/60 healthcare assistants (HCAs). 39/48 (81%) practices had an ECG machine and diagnosed AF in-house. Non-GP HCPs reported having less knowledge about ECG interpretation, diagnosing and treating AF than GPs. A greater proportion of non-GP HCPs reported they would benefit from ECG training specifically for AF diagnosis than GPs [proportion (95% CI) GPs: 11.9% (6.8–20.0); HCAs: 37.0% (21.7–55.5); nurses: 44.0% (30.0–59.0); NPs 41.2% (21.9–63.7)]. Barriers included time, workload and capacity to undertake screening activities, although training to diagnose and manage AF was a required facilitator. Conclusion: Inner-city general practices were found to have adequate access to resources for AF screening. There is enthusiasm by non-GP HCPs to up-skill in the diagnosis and management of AF and they may have a role in future AF screening. However, organisational barriers, such as lack of time, staff and capacity, should be overcome for AF screening to be feasibly implemented within primary care

Allopurinol and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease:the ALL-HEART RCT and economic evaluation

Background: Allopurinol is a xanthine oxidase inhibitor that lowers serum uric acid and is used to prevent acute gout flares in patients with gout. Observational and small interventional studies have suggested beneficial cardiovascular effects of allopurinol. Objective: To determine whether allopurinol improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease. Design: Prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint multicentre clinical trial. Setting: Four hundred and twenty-four UK primary care practices. Participants: Aged 60 years and over with ischaemic heart disease but no gout. Interventions: Participants were randomised (1: 1) using a central web-based randomisation system to receive allopurinol up to 600 mg daily that was added to usual care or to continue usual care. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the composite of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or cardiovascular death. Secondary outcomes were non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure, hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome, coronary revascularisation, hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome or coronary revascularisation, all cardiovascular hospitalisations, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs. usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis. Results: From 7 February 2014 to 2 October 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and randomised to the allopurinol arm (n = 2979) or the usual care arm (n = 2958). A total of 5721 randomised participants (2853 allopurinol; 2868 usual care) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis population (mean age 72.0 years; 75.5% male). There was no difference between the allopurinol and usual care arms in the primary endpoint, 314 (11.0%) participants in the allopurinol arm (2.47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11.3%) in the usual care arm (2.37 events per 100 patient-years), hazard ratio 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.21); p = 0.65. Two hundred and eighty-eight (10.1%) participants in the allopurinol arm and 303 (10.6%) participants in the usual care arm died, hazard ratio 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.20); p = 0.77. The pre-specified health economic analysis plan was to perform a ‘within trial’ cost-utility analysis if there was no statistically significant difference in the primary endpoint, so NHS costs and quality-adjusted life-years were estimated over a 5-year period. The difference in costs between treatment arms was +£115 higher for allopurinol (95% confidence interval £17 to £210) with no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (95% confidence interval −0.061 to +0.060). We conclude that there is no evidence that allopurinol used in line with the study protocol is cost-effective. Limitations: The results may not be generalisable to younger populations, other ethnic groups or patients with more acute ischaemic heart disease. One thousand six hundred and thirty-seven participants (57.4%) in the allopurinol arm withdrew from randomised treatment, but an on-treatment analysis gave similar results to the main analysis. Conclusions: The ALL-HEART study showed that treatment with allopurinol 600 mg daily did not improve cardiovascular outcomes compared to usual care in patients with ischaemic heart disease. We conclude that allopurinol should not be recommended for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with ischaemic heart disease but no gout.</p

Allopurinol and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease : the ALL-HEART RCT and economic evaluation

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 11/36/41) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 18. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.Peer reviewe

Accuracy of methods for diagnosing atrial fibrillation using 12-lead ECG: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) using 12-lead-electrocardiograms (ECGs) has been recommended; however, the best method for interpreting ECGs to diagnose AF is not known. We compared accuracy of methods for diagnosing AF from ECGs. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and LILACS until March 24, 2014. Two reviewers identified eligible studies, extracted data and appraised quality using the QUADAS-2 instrument. Meta-analysis, using the bivariate hierarchical random effects method, determined average operating points for sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR, NLR) and enabled construction of Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (SROC) plots. Results: 10 studies investigated 16 methods for interpreting ECGs (n = 55,376 participant ECGs). The sensitivity and specificity of automated software (8 studies; 9 methods) were 0.89 (95% C.I. 0.82–0.93) and 0.99 (95% C.I. 0.99–0.99), respectively; PLR 96.6 (95% C.I. 64.2–145.6); NLR 0.11 (95% C.I. 0.07–0.18). Indirect comparisons with software found healthcare professionals (5 studies; 7 methods) had similar sensitivity for diagnosing AF but lower specificity [sensitivity 0.92 (95% C.I. 0.81–0.97), specificity 0.93 (95% C.I. 0.76–0.98), PLR 13.9 (95% C.I. 3.5–55.3), NLR 0.09 (95% C.I. 0.03–0.22)]. Sub-group analyses of primary care professionals found greater specificity for GPs than nurses [GPs: sensitivity 0.91 (95% C.I. 0.68–1.00); specificity 0.96 (95% C.I. 0.89–1.00). Nurses: sensitivity 0.88 (95% C.I. 0.63–1.00); specificity 0.85 (95% C.I. 0.83–0.87)]. Conclusions: Automated ECG-interpreting software most accurately excluded AF, although its ability to diagnose this was similar to all healthcare professionals. Within primary care, the specificity of AF diagnosis from ECG was greater for GPs than nurses