How to coach student professional development during times of challenges and uncertainties

Abstract Background What we teach our (bio)medical students today may differ from the future context under which they will operate as health professionals. This shifting and highly demanding profession requires that we equip these students with adaptive competencies for their future careers. We aimed to develop a framework to promote and facilitate professional development from day one, guided by self-awareness and self-directed learning. Approach Based on self-directed, transformative and experiential learning, patient involvement and teamwork, we developed a 3-year longitudinal personal-professional development (LPPD) program in the (bio)medical sciences undergraduate curriculum to stimulate self-driven professional development in a variable context. Through group meetings and individual coach consultations, students address topics such as self-awareness, self-directed and lifelong learning, collaboration, well-being and resilience. To drive learning students receive extensive narrative feedback on an essay assignment. Evaluation Experiences and outcomes were evaluated with questionnaires and in-depth interviews. Students and coaches value personal and professional development in a safe learning environment that encourages self-exploration, diversity and connection. Over time, students show more self-awareness and self-directedness and increasingly apply trained skills, resulting in professional identity formation. Students need more clarification to understand the concept of assessment as learning. Implications With the generic content of a longitudinal program embedded in a meaningful environment, the personal and professional development of students can be facilitated and stimulated to face future challenges. When translating to other curricula, we suggest considering the complexity of professional development and the time expenditure needed for students to explore, experiment and practice. An early start and thorough integration are recommended

Detection of atrial fibrillation in primary care with radial pulse palpation, electronic blood pressure measurement and handheld single-lead electrocardiography:a diagnostic accuracy study

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of three tests-radial pulse palpation, an electronic blood pressure monitor and a handheld single-lead ECG device-for opportunistic screening for unknown atrial fibrillation (AF). DESIGN: We performed a diagnostic accuracy study in the intention-to-screen arm of a cluster randomised controlled trial aimed at opportunistic screening for AF in general practice. We performed radial pulse palpation, followed by electronic blood pressure measurement (WatchBP Home A) and handheld ECG (MyDiagnostick) in random order. If one or more index tests were positive, we performed a 12-lead ECG at shortest notice. Similarly, to limit verification bias, a random sample of patients with three negative index tests received this reference test. Additionally, we analysed the dataset using multiple imputation. We present pooled diagnostic parameters. SETTING: 47 general practices participated between September 2015 and August 2018. PARTICIPANTS: In the electronic medical record system of the participating general practices (n=47), we randomly marked 200 patients of ≥65 years without AF. When they visited the practice for any reason, we invited them to participate. Exclusion criteria were terminal illness, inability to give informed consent or visit the practice or having a pacemaker or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. OUTCOMES: Diagnostic accuracy of individual tests and test combinations to detect unknown AF. RESULTS: We included 4339 patients; 0.8% showed new AF. Sensitivity and specificity were 62.8% (range 43.1%-69.7%) and 91.8% (91.7%-91.8%) for radial pulse palpation, 70.0% (49.0%-80.6%) and 96.5% (96.3%-96.7%) for electronic blood pressure measurement and 90.1% (60.8%-100%) and 97.9% (97.8%-97.9%) for handheld ECG, respectively. Positive predictive values were 5.8% (5.3%-6.1%), 13.8% (12.2%-14.8%) and 25.2% (24.2%-25.8%), respectively. All negative predictive values were ≥99.7%. CONCLUSION: In detecting AF, electronic blood pressure measurement (WatchBP Home A), but especially handheld ECG (MyDiagnostick) showed better diagnostic accuracy than radial pulse palpation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Register No. NL4776 (old NTR4914)

Opportunistic screening versus usual care for detection of atrial fibrillation in primary care:cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether opportunistic screening in primary care increases the detection of atrial fibrillation compared with usual care. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 47 intention-to-screen and 49 usual care primary care practices in the Netherlands, not blinded for allocation; the study was carried out from September 2015 to August 2018. PARTICIPANTS: In each practice, a fixed sample of 200 eligible patients, aged 65 or older, with no known history of atrial fibrillation in the electronic medical record system, were randomly selected. In the intention-to-screen group, 9218 patients eligible for screening were included, 55.0% women, mean age 75.2 years. In the usual care group, 9526 patients were eligible for screening, 54.3% women, mean age 75.0 years. INTERVENTIONS: Opportunistic screening (that is, screening in patients visiting their general practice) consisted of three index tests: pulse palpation, electronic blood pressure measurement with an atrial fibrillation algorithm, and electrocardiography (ECG) with a handheld single lead electrocardiographic device. The reference standard was 12 lead ECG, performed in patients with at least one positive index test and in a sample of patients (10%) with three negative tests. If 12 lead ECG showed no atrial fibrillation, patients were invited for more screening by continuous monitoring with a Holter electrocardiograph for two weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Difference in the detection rate of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation over one year in intention-to-screen versus usual care practices. RESULTS: Follow-up was complete for 8874 patients in the intention-to-screen practices and for 9102 patients in the usual care practices. 144 (1.62%) new diagnoses of atrial fibrillation in the intention-to-screen group versus 139 (1.53%) in the usual care group were found (adjusted odds ratio 1.06 (95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.35)). Of 9218 eligible patients in the intention-to-screen group, 4106 (44.5%) participated in the screening protocol. In these patients, 12 lead ECG detected newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in 26 patients (0.63%). In the 266 patients who continued with Holter monitoring, four more diagnoses of atrial fibrillation were found. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation in primary care patients, aged 65 and over, did not increase the detection rate of atrial fibrillation, which implies that opportunistic screening for atrial fibrillation is not useful in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register No NL4776 (old NTR4914)

Effects of auditing patient safety in hospital care: design of a mixed-method evaluation

Contains fulltext : 125391.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Auditing of patient safety aims at early detection of risks of adverse events and is intended to encourage the continuous improvement of patient safety. The auditing should be an independent, objective assurance and consulting system. Auditing helps an organisation accomplish its objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluating and improving the effectiveness of risk management, control, and governance. Audits are broadly conducted in hospitals, but little is known about their effects on the behaviour of healthcare professionals and patient safety outcomes. This study was initiated to evaluate the effects of patient safety auditing in hospital care and to explore the processes and mechanisms underlying these effects.Methods and design: Our study aims to evaluate an audit system to monitor and improve patient safety in a hospital setting. We are using a mixed-method evaluation with a before-and-after study design in eight departments of one university hospital in the period October 2011--July 2014. We measure several outcomes 3 months before the audit and 15 months after the audit. The primary outcomes are adverse events and complications. The secondary outcomes are experiences of patients, the standardised mortality ratio, prolonged hospital stay, patient safety culture, and team climate. We use medical record reviews, questionnaires, hospital administrative data, and observations to assess the outcomes. A process evaluation will be used to find out which components of internal auditing determine the effects. DISCUSSION: We report a study protocol of an effect and process evaluation to determine whether auditing improves patient safety in hospital care. Because auditing is a complex intervention targeted on several levels, we are using a combination of methods to collect qualitative and quantitative data about patient safety at the patient, professional, and department levels. This study is relevant for hospitals that want to early detect unsafe care and improve patient safety continuously.Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR3343