Development and validation of an instrument to assess and improve clinical consultation skills

Context: Development of medical students’ consultation skills with patients is at the core of the UK General Medical Council’s 'Tomorrow’s Doctors' guide (2009). Teaching and assessment of these skills must therefore be a core component of the medical undergraduate curriculum. The Calgary Cambridge guide to the medical interview and the Leicester Assessment Package (LAP) provide a foundation for teaching and assessment, but both have different strengths. Objective: To develop and validate a comprehensive set of generic consultation competencies. Design: The Calgary Cambridge guide to the medical interview was revised to include ‘clinical reasoning’, ‘management’, ‘record keeping’ and ‘case presentation’. Each section was populated with competencies generated from Tomorrow’s Doctors (2009), the LAP and the Calgary Cambridge guide to the medical interview. A Delphi validation study was conducted with a panel drawn from hospital and general practice clinical tutors from eight UK medical schools. Main outcome measures: A priori consensus standards for inclusion (or exclusion) of an element were: at Stage 1 =70% agreement (or disagreement) that the item should be included; at Stage 2 =50% agreement (or disagreement) that the item should be included. If more than 10% of respondents suggested a thematically similar new item (or rewording of an existing item) in Stage 1, it was included in Stage 2. Results: The design stage resulted in a set of 9 categories of consultation skills with 58 component competencies. In the Delphi study all the competencies reached 70% agreement for inclusion, with 24 suggested amendments, all of which achieved consensus for inclusion at Stage 2. Conclusion: We have developed a Generic Consultation Skills assessment framework (GeCoS) through a rigorous initial development and piloting process and a multi-institutional and multi-speciality Delphi process. GeCoS is now ready for use as a tool for teaching, formative and summative assessment in any simulated or workplace environment in the hospital or community clinical setting

Feasibility study of student telehealth interviews.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to medical students being taught remote clinical communication modalities (telephone and video). Junior students have not generally been included in this and have had less patient contact than previously. This study aimed to examine the feasibility from the junior student viewpoint of conducting both modalities of patient telehealth interviews. Methods: An electronic questionnaire was used to discover Year 1 student reasons for their preferred modality after they had conducted one telephone and one video interview in pairs with a patient volunteer. Student views on the challenge and benefits of each were also sought. Findings: A total of 55 (32.7% of the cohort) responded, of whom 82% preferred video consultation, 75.6% of those stating being able to see their patient/partner was a key factor. About 5% preferred telephone interview, and 13% had no preference. Telephone interviews were perceived as the more challenging (40% versus 12.7%); however, challenge did not directly link with lack of comfort. There were some technical/connectivity issues with both modalities, and the telephone call system was more complex to set up. Turn-taking was more difficult by telephone without visual cues. Discussion: This is the first direct comparison study in junior medical students of real patient interviews by video or telephone. Students embraced the challenge and, although preferring video and finding telephone more challenging, valued each as an educational experience. Conclusions: Telehealth interviews with patients for junior students are feasible, give needed patient exposure, practical insights into remote modalities and consolidate communication skills learnt in the classroom

Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments: a protocol for Development of a consultation intervention (iFraP-D).

Funder: Wellcome TrustINTRODUCTION: Prevention of fragility fractures, a source of significant economic and personal burden, is hindered by poor uptake of fracture prevention medicines. Enhancing communication of scientific evidence and elicitation of patient medication-related beliefs has the potential to increase patient commitment to treatment. The Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments (iFraP) programme aims to develop and evaluate a theoretically informed, complex intervention consisting of a computerised web-based decision support tool, training package and information resources, to facilitate informed decision-making about fracture prevention treatment, with a long-term aim of improving informed treatment adherence. This protocol focuses on the iFraP Development (iFraP-D) work. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The approach to iFraP-D is informed by the Medical Research Council complex intervention development and evaluation framework and the three-step implementation of change model. The context for the study is UK fracture liaison services (FLS), which enact secondary fracture prevention. An evidence synthesis of clinical guidelines and Delphi exercise will be conducted to identify content for the intervention. Focus groups with patients, FLS clinicians and general practitioners and a usual care survey will facilitate understanding of current practice, and investigate barriers and facilitators to change. Design of the iFraP intervention will be informed by decision aid development standards and theories of implementation, behaviour change, acceptability and medicines adherence. The principles of co-design will underpin all elements of the study through a dedicated iFraP community of practice including key stakeholders and patient advisory groups. In-practice testing of the prototype intervention will inform revisions ready for further testing in a subsequent pilot and feasibility randomised trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from North West-Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee (19/NW/0559). Dissemination and knowledge mobilisation will be facilitated through national bodies and networks, publications and presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: researchregistry5041

Guidelines: the do’s, don’ts and don’t knows of feedback for clinical education

Introduction The guidelines offered in this paper aim to amalgamate the literature on formative feedback into practical Do’s, Don’ts and Don’t Knows for individual clinical supervisors and for the institutions that support clinical learning. Methods The authors built consensus by an iterative process. Do’s and Don’ts were proposed based on authors’ individual teaching experience and awareness of the literature, and the amalgamated set of guidelines were then refined by all authors and the evidence was summarized for each guideline. Don’t Knows were identified as being important questions to this international group of educators which if answered would change practice. The criteria for inclusion of evidence for these guidelines were not those of a systematic review, so indicators of strength of these recommendations were developed which combine the evidence with the authors’ consensus. Results A set of 32 Do and Don’t guidelines with the important Don’t Knows was compiled along with a summary of the evidence for each. These are divided into guidelines for the individual clinical supervisor giving feedback to their trainee (recommendations about both the process and the content of feedback) and guidelines for the learning culture (what elements of learning culture support the exchange of meaningful feedback, and what elements constrain it?) Conclusion Feedback is not easy to get right, but it is essential to learning in medicine, and there is a wealth of evidence supporting the Do’s and warning against the Don’ts. Further research into the critical Don’t Knows of feedback is required. A new definition is offered: Helpful feedback is a supportive conversation that clarifies the trainee’s awareness of their developing competencies, enhances their self-efficacy for making progress, challenges them to set objectives for improvement, and facilitates their development of strategies to enable that improvement to occur

Medical students' perceptions of bedside teaching

Background Bedside teaching is recognised as a valuable tool in medical education by both students and faculty members. Bedside teaching is frequently delivered by consultants; however, junior doctors are increasingly engaging in this form of clinical teaching, and their value in this respect is becoming more widely recognised. The aim of this study was to supplement work completed by previous authors who have begun to explore students’ satisfaction with bedside teaching, and their perceptions of the relationship with the clinical teachers. Specifically, we aimed to identify how students perceive bedside teaching delivered by junior doctors compared with consultants. We aimed to identify how students perceived bedside teaching delivered by junior doctors compared with consultants Methods A questionnaire was distributed to all third‐year medical students at Keele University via e–mail. Responses were submitted anonymously. Results Forty‐six students responded (37.4%), 73.3 per cent of whom said that they felt more comfortable having bedside teaching delivered by junior doctors than by consultants. Consultants were perceived as more challenging by 60 per cent of respondents. Students appeared to value feedback on their performance, trust the validity of taught information, and to value the overall educational experience equally, regardless of the clinical grade of the teacher. Discussion Student preference does not equate to the value that they place on their bedside teaching. Junior doctors are perceived as being more in touch with students and the curriculum, whereas consultants are perceived as having higher expectations and as being both stricter and more knowledgeable. The clinical teacher's approachable manner and enthusiasm for teaching are more important than clinical grade, as is the ability to deliver well‐structured constructive feedback

Grades in formative workplace-based assessments – a study of what works for whom and why

Context Grades are commonly used in formative workplace-based assessment (WPBA) in medical education and training but may draw attention away from feedback about the task. The dilemma is that the self-regulatory focus of a trainee must include self-awareness relative to agreed standards, which implies grading. In this study we aimed to understand the meaning which medical students construct from WPBA feedback with and without grades, and what influences this. Methods Year 3 students were invited to take part in a randomised crossover study in which each student was their own control. Each student had one WPBA with and one without grades, and then chose whether or not to have grades with their third WPBA. These preferences were explored via semi-structured interviews. A realist approach to analysis was used to gain understanding of student preferences and the impact of feedback with and without grades. Results and discussion Of students who had feedback with and without grades, 65 (78%) then chose to have feedback with grades and 18 (22%) without grades their third WPBA. 24 students were interviewed. Students described how grades locate their performance and calibrate their self-assessment. For some, low grades focused attention and effort. Satisfactory and high grades enhanced self-efficacy. Grades are also concrete, powerful and blunt, can be harmful and need explanation to help students create helpful meaning from them. Low grades risk reducing self-efficacy in some and may encourage others to focus on proving their ability rather than on improvement. A metaphor of the semi-permeable membrane is introduced to understand how students reduced potential negative effects and enhanced the positive effects of feedback with grades by selective filtering and pumping