Guidelines: The do's, don'ts and don't knows of direct observation of clinical skills in medical education.

IntroductionDirect observation of clinical skills is a key assessment strategy in competency-based medical education. The guidelines presented in this paper synthesize the literature on direct observation of clinical skills. The goal is to provide a practical list of Do's, Don'ts and Don't Knows about direct observation for supervisors who teach learners in the clinical setting and for educational leaders who are responsible for clinical training programs.MethodsWe built consensus through an iterative approach in which each author, based on their medical education and research knowledge and expertise, independently developed a list of Do's, Don'ts, and Don't Knows about direct observation of clinical skills. Lists were compiled, discussed and revised. We then sought and compiled evidence to support each guideline and determine the strength of each guideline.ResultsA final set of 33 Do's, Don'ts and Don't Knows is presented along with a summary of evidence for each guideline. Guidelines focus on two groups: individual supervisors and the educational leaders responsible for clinical training programs. Guidelines address recommendations for how to focus direct observation, select an assessment tool, promote high quality assessments, conduct rater training, and create a learning culture conducive to direct observation.ConclusionsHigh frequency, high quality direct observation of clinical skills can be challenging. These guidelines offer important evidence-based Do's and Don'ts that can help improve the frequency and quality of direct observation. Improving direct observation requires focus not just on individual supervisors and their learners, but also on the organizations and cultures in which they work and train. Additional research to address the Don't Knows can help educators realize the full potential of direct observation in competency-based education

Modification of an OSCE format to enhance patient continuity in a high-stakes assessment of clinical performance

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Traditional Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) are psychometrically sound but have the limitation of fragmenting complex clinical cases into brief stations. We describe a pilot study of a modified OSCE that attempts to balance a typical OSCE format with a semblance of a continuous, complex, patient case.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Two OSCE scenarios were developed. Each scenario involved a single standardized patient and was subdivided into three sequential 10 minute sections that assessed separate content areas and competencies. Twenty Canadian PGY-4 internal medicine trainees were assessed by trained examiner pairs during each OSCE scenario. Paired examiners rated participant performance independent of each other, on each section of each scenario using a validated global rating scale. Inter-rater reliabilities and Pearson correlations between ratings of the 3 sections of each scenario were calculated. A generalizability study was conducted. Participant and examiner satisfaction was surveyed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was no main effect of section or scenario. Inter-rater reliability was acceptable. The g-coefficient was 0.68; four scenarios would achieve 0.80. Moderate correlations between sections of a scenario suggest a possible halo effect. The majority of examiners and participants felt that the modified OSCE provided a sense of patient continuity.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The modified OSCE provides another approach to the assessment of clinical performance. It attempts to balance the advantages of a traditional OSCE with a sense of patient continuity.</p

Anticancer properties of propofol-docosahexaenoate and propofol-eicosapentaenoate on breast cancer cells

INTRODUCTION: Epidemiological evidence strongly links fish oil, which is rich in docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), with low incidences of several types of cancer. The inhibitory effects of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids on cancer development and progression are supported by studies with cultured cells and animal models. Propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol) is the most extensively used general anesthetic–sedative agent employed today and is nontoxic to humans at high levels (50 μg/ml). Clinically relevant concentrations of propofol (3 to 8 μg/ml; 20 to 50 μM) have also been reported to have anticancer activities. The present study describes the synthesis, purification, characterization and evaluation of two novel anticancer conjugates, propofol-docosahexaenoate (propofol-DHA) and propofol-eicosapentaenoate (propofol-EPA). METHODS: The conjugates linking an omega-3 fatty acid, either DHA or EPA, with propofol were synthesized and tested for their effects on migration, adhesion and apoptosis on MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells. RESULTS: At low concentrations (25 μM), DHA, EPA or propofol alone or in combination had minimal effect on cell adhesion to vitronectin, cell migration against serum and the induction of apoptosis (only 5 to 15% of the cells became apoptotic). In contrast, the propofol-DHA or propofol-EPA conjugates significantly inhibited cell adhesion (15 to 30%) and migration (about 50%) and induced apoptosis (about 40%) in breast cancer cells. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the novel propofol-DHA and propofol-EPA conjugates reported here may be useful for the treatment of breast cancer

Effectiveness of an evidence-based chiropractic continuing education workshop on participant knowledge of evidence-based health care

BACKGROUND: Chiropractors must continue to learn, develop themselves professionally throughout their careers, and become self-directed and lifelong learners. Using an evidence-based approach increases the probability of optimal patient outcomes. But most chiropractors lack knowledge and interest in evidence-based approaches. The purpose of this study was to develop and measure the effectiveness of evidence-based training for chiropractic practitioners in a continuing education setting. METHODS: We developed and evaluated a continuing education workshop on evidence-based principles and methods for chiropractic practitioners. Forty-seven chiropractors participated in the training and testing. The course consisted of 12.5 hours of training in which practitioners learned to develop focused questions, search electronic data bases, critically review articles and apply information from the literature to specific clinical questions. Following the workshop, we assessed the program performance through the use of knowledge testing and anonymous presentation quality surveys. RESULTS: Eighty-five percent of the participants completed all of the test, survey and data collection items. Pretest knowledge scores (15-item test) were low (47%). Post intervention scores (15-item test) improved with an effect size of 2.0. A 59-item knowledge posttest yielded very good results (mean score 88%). The quality of presentation was rated very good, and most participants (90%) would "definitely recommend" or "recommend" the workshop to a colleague. CONCLUSION: The results of the study suggest that the continuing education course was effective in enhancing knowledge in the evidence-based approach and that the presentation was well accepted

Validation of educational assessments: a primer for simulation and beyond

Background: Simulation plays a vital role in health professions assessment. This review provides a primer on assessment validation for educators and education researchers. We focus on simulation-based assessment of health professionals, but the principles apply broadly to other assessment approaches and topics. Key principles: Validation refers to the process of collecting validity evidence to evaluate the appropriateness of the interpretations, uses, and decisions based on assessment results. Contemporary frameworks view validity as a hypothesis, and validity evidence is collected to support or refute the validity hypothesis (i.e., that the proposed interpretations and decisions are defensible). In validation, the educator or researcher defines the proposed interpretations and decisions, identifies and prioritizes the most questionable assumptions in making these interpretations and decisions (the “interpretation-use argument”), empirically tests those assumptions using existing or newly-collected evidence, and then summarizes the evidence as a coherent “validity argument.” A framework proposed by Messick identifies potential evidence sources: content, response process, internal structure, relationships with other variables, and consequences. Another framework proposed by Kane identifies key inferences in generating useful interpretations: scoring, generalization, extrapolation, and implications/decision. We propose an eight-step approach to validation that applies to either framework: Define the construct and proposed interpretation, make explicit the intended decision(s), define the interpretation-use argument and prioritize needed validity evidence, identify candidate instruments and/or create/adapt a new instrument, appraise existing evidence and collect new evidence as needed, keep track of practical issues, formulate the validity argument, and make a judgment: does the evidence support the intended use? Conclusions: Rigorous validation first prioritizes and then empirically evaluates key assumptions in the interpretation and use of assessment scores. Validation science would be improved by more explicit articulation and prioritization of the interpretation-use argument, greater use of formal validation frameworks, and more evidence informing the consequences and implications of assessment.Medicine, Faculty ofNon UBCMedicine, Department ofReviewedFacult