A Modified Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MMERSQI) developed by Delphi consensus

BACKGROUND: The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) is widely used to appraise the methodological quality of medical education studies. However, the MERSQI lacks some criteria which could facilitate better quality assessment. The objective of this study is to achieve consensus among experts on: (1) the MERSQI scoring system and the relative importance of each domain (2) modifications of the MERSQI. METHOD: A modified Delphi technique was used to achieve consensus among experts in the field of medical education. The initial item pool contained all items from MERSQI and items added in our previous published work. Each Delphi round comprised a questionnaire and, after the first iteration, an analysis and feedback report. We modified the quality instruments’ domains, items and sub-items and re-scored items/domains based on the Delphi panel feedback. RESULTS: A total of 12 experts agreed to participate and were sent the first and second-round questionnaires. First round: 12 returned of which 11 contained analysable responses; second-round: 10 returned analysable responses. We started with seven domains with an initial item pool of 12 items and 38 sub-items. No change in the number of domains or items resulted from the Delphi process; however, the number of sub-items increased from 38 to 43 across the two Delphi rounds. In Delphi-2: eight respondents gave ‘study design’ the highest weighting while ‘setting’ was given the lowest weighting by all respondents. There was no change in the domains’ average weighting score and ranks between rounds. CONCLUSIONS: The final criteria list and the new domain weighting score of the Modified MERSQI (MMERSQI) was satisfactory to all respondents. We suggest that the MMERSQI, in building on the success of the MERSQI, may help further establish a reference standard of quality measures for many medical education studies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-023-04033-6

The contribution of physician assistants/associates to secondary care : a systematic review

OBJECTIVE: To appraise and synthesise research on the impact of physician assistants/associates (PA) in secondary care, specifically acute internal medicine, care of the elderly, emergency medicine, trauma and orthopaedics, and mental health. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, ASSIA, CINAHL, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, EconLit and Cochrane), reference lists and related articles. INCLUDED ARTICLES: Peer-reviewed articles of any study design, published in English, 1995-2017. INTERVENTIONS: Blinded parallel processes were used to screen abstracts and full text, data extractions and quality assessments against published guidelines. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. OUTCOME MEASURES: Impact on: patients' experiences and outcomes, service organisation, working practices, other professional groups and costs. RESULTS: 5472 references were identified and 161 read in full; 16 were included-emergency medicine (7), trauma and orthopaedics (6), acute internal medicine (2), mental health (1) and care of the elderly (0). All studies were observational, with variable methodological quality. In emergency medicine and in trauma and orthopaedics, when PAs are added to teams, reduced waiting and process times, lower charges, equivalent readmission rate and good acceptability to staff and patients are reported. Analgesia prescribing, operative complications and mortality outcomes were variable. In internal medicine outcomes of care provided by PAs and doctors were equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: PAs have been deployed to increase the capacity of a team, enabling gains in waiting time, throughput, continuity and medical cover. When PAs were compared with medical staff, reassuringly there was little or no negative effect on health outcomes or cost. The difficulty of attributing cause and effect in complex systems where work is organised in teams is highlighted. Further rigorous evaluation is required to address the complexity of the PA role, reporting on more than one setting, and including comparison between PAs and roles for which they are substituting. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016032895

Physician associates working in secondary care teams in England: Interprofessional implications from a national survey

Physician associates (PAs) are a new type of healthcare professional to the United Kingdom; however, they are well established in the United States (where they are known as physician assistants). PAs are viewed as one potential solution to the current medical workforce doctor shortage. This study investigated the deployment of PAs within secondary care teams in England, through the use of a cross-sectional electronic, self-report survey. The findings from 14 questions are presented. Sixty-three PAs working in a range of specialties responded. A variety of work settings were reported, most frequently inpatient wards, with work generally taking place during weekdays. Both direct and non-direct patient care activities were reported, with the type of work undertaken varying at times, depending on the presence or absence of other healthcare professionals. PAs reported working within a variety of secondary care team staffing permutations, with the majority of these being interprofessional. Line management was largely provided by consultants; however day-to-day supervision varied, often relating to different work settings. A wide variation in ongoing supervision was also reported. Further research is required to understand the nature of PAs' contribution to collaborative care within secondary care teams in England

Screening in the community to reduce fractures in older women (SCOOP): a randomised controlled trial

Background Despite effective assessment methods and medications targeting osteoporosis and related fractures, screening for fracture risk is not currently advocated in the UK. We tested whether a community-based screening intervention could reduce fractures in older women. Methods We did a two-arm randomised controlled trial in women aged 70–85 years to compare a screening programme using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) with usual management. Women were recruited from 100 general practitioner (GP) practices in seven regions of the UK: Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester, Norwich, Sheffield, Southampton, and York. We excluded women who were currently on prescription anti-osteoporotic drugs and any individuals deemed to be unsuitable to enter a research study (eg, known dementia, terminally ill, or recently bereaved). The primary outcome was the proportion of individuals who had one or more osteoporosis-related fractures over a 5-year period. In the screening group, treatment was recommended in women identified to be at high risk of hip fracture, according to the FRAX 10-year hip fracture probability. Prespecified secondary outcomes were the proportions of participants who had at least one hip fracture, any clinical fracture, or mortality; and the effect of screening on anxiety and health-related quality of life. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN 55814835. Findings 12 483 eligible women were identified and participated in the trial, and 6233 women randomly assigned to the screening group between April 15, 2008, and July 2, 2009. Treatment was recommended in 898 (14%) of 6233 women. Use of osteoporosis medication was higher at the end of year 1 in the screening group compared with controls (15% vs 4%), with uptake particularly high (78% at 6 months) in the screening high-risk subgroup. Screening did not reduce the primary outcome of incidence of all osteoporosis-related fractures (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·85–1·03, p=0·178), nor the overall incidence of all clinical fractures (0·94, 0·86–1·03, p=0·183), but screening reduced the incidence of hip fractures (0·72, 0·59–0·89, p=0·002). There was no evidence of differences in mortality, anxiety levels, or quality of life. Interpretation Systematic, community-based screening programme of fracture risk in older women in the UK is feasible, and could be effective in reducing hip fractures. Funding Arthritis Research UK and Medical Research Council

Response to: Response to: Gaining an advantage by sitting an OSCE after your peers: a retrospective study

No abstract available

Response to: Is there such a thing as a fair OSCE?

No abstract available