Modifying and validating the social responsiveness scale edition 2 for use with deaf children and young people

A Delphi consensus methodology was used to adapt a screening tool, the Social Responsiveness Scale- 2 (SRS-2), for use with deaf children including those whose preferred communication method is sign language. Using this approach; 27 international experts (The Delphi International Expert Panel), on the topic of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in deaf people, contributed to the review of item content. A criterion for agreement was set at 80% of experts on each item (with 75% acceptable in the final fourth round). The agreed modifications are discussed. The modified SRS-2 research adaptation for deaf people (referred to here as the "SRS-2 Deaf adaptation") was then translated into British Sign Language using a robust translation methodology and validated in England in a sample of 198 deaf children, 76 with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and 122 without ASD. The SRS-2 Deaf adaptation was compared blind to a NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) guideline standard clinical assessment. The area under the Receiver Operating (ROC) curve was 0.811 (95% CI: 0.753, 0.869), with an optimal cut-off value of 73, which gave a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 67%. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient was 0.968 suggesting high internal consistency. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was 0.897, supporting test-retest reliability. This performance is equivalent to similar instruments used for screening ASD in the hearing population

The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey: an analysis of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in 25 UK medical schools relating to timing, duration, teaching formats, teaching content, and problem-based learning.

BACKGROUND: What subjects UK medical schools teach, what ways they teach subjects, and how much they teach those subjects is unclear. Whether teaching differences matter is a separate, important question. This study provides a detailed picture of timetabled undergraduate teaching activity at 25 UK medical schools, particularly in relation to problem-based learning (PBL). METHOD: The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey used detailed timetables provided by 25 schools with standard 5-year courses. Timetabled teaching events were coded in terms of course year, duration, teaching format, and teaching content. Ten schools used PBL. Teaching times from timetables were validated against two other studies that had assessed GP teaching and lecture, seminar, and tutorial times. RESULTS: A total of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in the academic year 2014/2015 were analysed, including SSCs (student-selected components) and elective studies. A typical UK medical student receives 3960 timetabled hours of teaching during their 5-year course. There was a clear difference between the initial 2 years which mostly contained basic medical science content and the later 3 years which mostly consisted of clinical teaching, although some clinical teaching occurs in the first 2 years. Medical schools differed in duration, format, and content of teaching. Two main factors underlay most of the variation between schools, Traditional vs PBL teaching and Structured vs Unstructured teaching. A curriculum map comparing medical schools was constructed using those factors. PBL schools differed on a number of measures, having more PBL teaching time, fewer lectures, more GP teaching, less surgery, less formal teaching of basic science, and more sessions with unspecified content. DISCUSSION: UK medical schools differ in both format and content of teaching. PBL and non-PBL schools clearly differ, albeit with substantial variation within groups, and overlap in the middle. The important question of whether differences in teaching matter in terms of outcomes is analysed in a companion study (MedDifs) which examines how teaching differences relate to university infrastructure, entry requirements, student perceptions, and outcomes in Foundation Programme and postgraduate training

Exploring UK medical school differences: the MedDifs study of selection, teaching, student and F1 perceptions, postgraduate outcomes and fitness to practise.

BACKGROUND: Medical schools differ, particularly in their teaching, but it is unclear whether such differences matter, although influential claims are often made. The Medical School Differences (MedDifs) study brings together a wide range of measures of UK medical schools, including postgraduate performance, fitness to practise issues, specialty choice, preparedness, satisfaction, teaching styles, entry criteria and institutional factors. METHOD: Aggregated data were collected for 50 measures across 29 UK medical schools. Data include institutional history (e.g. rate of production of hospital and GP specialists in the past), curricular influences (e.g. PBL schools, spend per student, staff-student ratio), selection measures (e.g. entry grades), teaching and assessment (e.g. traditional vs PBL, specialty teaching, self-regulated learning), student satisfaction, Foundation selection scores, Foundation satisfaction, postgraduate examination performance and fitness to practise (postgraduate progression, GMC sanctions). Six specialties (General Practice, Psychiatry, Anaesthetics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Internal Medicine, Surgery) were examined in more detail. RESULTS: Medical school differences are stable across time (median alpha = 0.835). The 50 measures were highly correlated, 395 (32.2%) of 1225 correlations being significant with p < 0.05, and 201 (16.4%) reached a Tukey-adjusted criterion of p < 0.0025. Problem-based learning (PBL) schools differ on many measures, including lower performance on postgraduate assessments. While these are in part explained by lower entry grades, a surprising finding is that schools such as PBL schools which reported greater student satisfaction with feedback also showed lower performance at postgraduate examinations. More medical school teaching of psychiatry, surgery and anaesthetics did not result in more specialist trainees. Schools that taught more general practice did have more graduates entering GP training, but those graduates performed less well in MRCGP examinations, the negative correlation resulting from numbers of GP trainees and exam outcomes being affected both by non-traditional teaching and by greater historical production of GPs. Postgraduate exam outcomes were also higher in schools with more self-regulated learning, but lower in larger medical schools. A path model for 29 measures found a complex causal nexus, most measures causing or being caused by other measures. Postgraduate exam performance was influenced by earlier attainment, at entry to Foundation and entry to medical school (the so-called academic backbone), and by self-regulated learning. Foundation measures of satisfaction, including preparedness, had no subsequent influence on outcomes. Fitness to practise issues were more frequent in schools producing more male graduates and more GPs. CONCLUSIONS: Medical schools differ in large numbers of ways that are causally interconnected. Differences between schools in postgraduate examination performance, training problems and GMC sanctions have important implications for the quality of patient care and patient safety

MANAGEMENT OF LDL-C IN HIGH RISK FEMALE PATIENTS WITH ASCVD- A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY

Therapeutic Area: ASCD/CVD in Women Background: The 2018 ACC/AHA guidelines recommend an LDL-C of 70mg/dL as a threshold to initiate non-statin medications in patients with a history of a major ASCVD event. Analysis of the PINNACLE Registry and the TRANSFORM LDL-C Risk Initiative identified female patients as a high risk population with a low likelihood of achieving an LDL-C 70mg/dL despite having a history of a major ASCVD event, of which only 27% were on the max dose of a high intensity statin. Only 10.4% were noted to be on additional non-statin lipid lowering therapies, of which Ezetimibe was the most prescribed (76.9%) while PCSK9 inhibitors were the least prescribed (7.7%). CVA was the most common observed major ASCVD event (45.8%), while HTN and HLD were the most common associated comorbidities (85.9%, 83.4%). Conclusion: Although the 2018 ACC/AHA guidelines recommend initiating non-statin medications in patients with a major ASCVD event, clinical implementation of these guidelines has not yet become widespread. In this study, we identify female patients as a high risk population that does not meet these guidelines at our institution. Further studies will focus on implementing a quality initiative program to improve the prescribing practices of non-statin medications in this population

Regional anaesthesia training in the UK – a national survey

Background: Adequate training of anaesthetists in regional anaesthesia is important to ensure optimal patient access to regional anaesthesia. Methods: We undertook a national survey of UK trainee anaesthetists and Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCoA) tutors to assess experiences of training in regional anaesthesia. We performed descriptive statistics for baseline characteristics, and logistic regression of training indices and tutor confidence that their hospital could provide regional anaesthesia training at all three stages of the RCoA 2021 curriculum. Results: A total of 492 trainees (19.2%) and 114 tutors (45.2%) completed the survey. Trainees were less likely to have received training in chest/abdominal wall compared with upper/lower limb blocks {erector spinae vs femoral block (odds ratio [OR] 0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16–0.39), P&lt;0.001}, or achieved &gt;20 chest/abdominal wall blocks by Stage 3 of training (chest vs lower limb block [OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05–0.15, P&lt;0.001]. There was a strong association between training received, number of blocks performed (&gt;20 vs 0–5 blocks), and self-reported ability to perform blocks independently, OR 20.9 (95% CI 9.38–53.2). 24/182 (13%) and 10/182 (5.5%) of trainees had performed ≥50 non-obstetric lumbar and thoracic epidurals, respectively, by Stage 3 training. There was a positive association between having a lead clinician for regional anaesthesia, particularly those with paid sessions, and reported confidence to provide regional anaesthesia training at all stages of the curriculum (Stage 3 OR 7.27 [95% CI 2.64–22.0]). Conclusion: Our results confirm the importance of clinical experience and access to training in regional anaesthesia, and support the introduction of departmental regional anaesthesia leads to improve equity and quality in training opportunities