Developing doctors: what are the attitudes and perceptions of year 1 and 2 medical students towards a new integrated formative objective structured clinical examination?

BACKGROUND: Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a core component of undergraduate medical student assessment. With increased emphasis on integrated programmes, more courses include OSCEs in the traditionally 'preclinical' years. The acceptability and impact of such assessment methods at this stage of training is unknown. METHODS: In 2013 and 2014 University College London Medical School piloted a formative, integrated OSCE in years 1 and 2 of the undergraduate medical degree programme. This study with a sequential exploratory design aimed to explore the acceptability and impact of such an OSCE in the early years of medical school. 1280 students completed the OSCE and were invited to complete a questionnaire exploring their views of the OSCE (response rate 96.6%). Four focus groups, each with five or six participants (22 in total) were subsequently held to further explore themes. Data was independently transcribed and coded using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Students were strongly in favour of the introduction of an OSCE in addition to existing assessments. Six overarching themes were identified: application of knowledge and skills; OSCE as an experience; OSCE as a process; a learning curve; becoming a doctor; and creating an effective OSCE. CONCLUSIONS: Results strongly support the role of OSCE early in the medical course with many benefits reported. An OSCE at this stage aligns with the vision of integrated medical education which includes early patient contact and introduction of clinical and professional skills. It also fosters feelings of responsibility and professional identity amongst students.

Paper trials: a qualitative study exploring the place of portfolios in making revalidation recommendations for Responsible Officers.

BACKGROUND: A portfolio of supporting information (SI) reflecting a doctor's entire medical practice is now a central aspect of UK appraisal for revalidation. Medical revalidation, introduced in 2012, is an assessment of a doctor's competence and passing results in a five yearly license to practice medicine. It assesses of a doctor's professional development, workplace performance and reflection and aims to provide assurance that doctors are up-to-date and fit to practice. The dominant assessment mechanism is a portfolio. The content of the revalidation portfolio has been increasingly prescribed and the assessment of the SI is a fundamental aspect of the appraisal process which ultimately allows Responsible Officers (ROs) to make recommendations on revalidation. ROs, themselves doctors, were the first to undergo UK revalidation. This qualitative study explored the perceptions of ROs and their appraisers about the use of this portfolio of evidence in a summative revalidation appraisal. METHODS: 28 purposefully sampled London ROs were interviewed following their revalidation appraisal and 17 of their appraisers participated in focus groups and interviews. Thematic analysis was used to identify commonalities and differences of experience. RESULTS: SI was mostly easy to provide but there were challenges in gathering certain aspects. ROs did not understand in what quantities they should supply SI or what it should look like. Appraisers were concerned about making robust judgements based on the evidence supplied. A lack of reflection from the process of collating SI and preparing for appraisal was noted and learning came more from the appraisal interview itself. CONCLUSIONS: More explicit guidance must be available to both appraisee and appraiser about what SI is required, how much, how it should be used and, how it will be assessed. The role of SI in professional learning and revalidation must be clarified and further empirical research is required to examine how best to use this evidence to make judgments as part of this type of appraisal.

Quality and impact of appraisal for revalidation: the perceptions of London's responsible officers and their appraisers.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate NHS England London region's approach to the revalidation appraisal of responsible officers in London, exploring perceptions of the quality and impact of the appraisal process. Revalidation is the process which aims to ensure doctors in the UK are up-to-date and fit to practice medicine thus improving the quality of patient care. Revalidation recommendations are largely premised on the documentation included in annual appraisals, which includes the professional development a doctor has undertaken and supporting information about their practice. METHODS: A pan-London qualitative study exploring the views of responsible officers and their appraisers about the revalidation appraisal process. The study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of the experiences and perceptions of the participants. Responsible officers were purposefully sampled to represent the broadest range of designated bodies. Data analysis generated themes pertaining to quality and impact of appraisal for revalidation with the potential to feed into and shape the evolving system under investigation. RESULTS: The central importance of highly skilled appraisers was highlighted. Both groups reported educational opportunities embedded within the appraisal process. Independent appraisers, not matched by clinical speciality or place of work, were considered to take a more objective view of a responsible officer's practice by providing an 'outsider perspective'. However, covering the breadth of roles, in sufficient depth, was challenging. Participants reported a bias favouring the appraisal of the responsible officer role above others including clinical work. Appraisal and revalidation was perceived to have the potential to improve the healthcare standards and support both personal development and institutional quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Responsible officers play a central role in the revalidation process. Getting responsible officer appraisal right is central to supporting those individuals to in turn support doctors and healthcare organisations in continuous quality improvement. The complexity and importance of the role of responsible officer may make achieving an appraisal of all roles of such individuals problematic. This evaluation suggests responsible officer appraisal was perceived as educational and effective.

Qualitative study of the impact of an authentic electronic portfolio in undergraduate medical education.

BACKGROUND: Portfolios are increasingly used in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education. Four medical schools have collaborated with an established NHS electronic portfolio provider to develop and implement an authentic professional electronic portfolio for undergraduate students. We hypothesized that using an authentic portfolio would have significant advantages for students, particularly in familiarizing them with the tool many will continue to use for years after graduation. This paper describes the early evaluation of this undergraduate portfolio at two participating medical schools. METHODS: To gather data, a questionnaire survey with extensive free text comments was used at School 1, and three focus groups were held at School 2. This paper reports thematic analysis of students' opinions expressed in the free text comments and focus groups. RESULTS: Five main themes, common across both schools were identified. These concerned the purpose, use and acceptability of the portfolio, advantages of and barriers to the use of the portfolio, and the impacts on both learning and professional identity. CONCLUSIONS: An authentic portfolio mitigated some of the negative aspects of using a portfolio, and had a positive effect on students' perception of themselves as becoming past of the profession. However, significant barriers to portfolio use remained, including a lack of understanding of the purpose of a portfolio and a perceived damaging effect on feedback.

Inpatient COVID-19 mortality has reduced over time: Results from an observational cohort.

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom has seen two waves; the first starting in March 2020 and the second in late October 2020. It is not known whether outcomes for those admitted with severe Covid were different in the first and second waves. METHODS: The study population comprised all patients admitted to a 1,500-bed London Hospital Trust between March 2020 and March 2021, who tested positive for Covid-19 by PCR within 3-days of admissions. Primary outcome was death within 28-days of admission. Socio-demographics (age, sex, ethnicity), hypertension, diabetes, obesity, baseline physiological observations, CRP, neutrophil, chest x-ray abnormality, remdesivir and dexamethasone were incorporated as co-variates. Proportional subhazards models compared mortality risk between wave 1 and wave 2. Cox-proportional hazard model with propensity score adjustment were used to compare mortality in patients prescribed remdesivir and dexamethasone. RESULTS: There were 3,949 COVID-19 admissions, 3,195 hospital discharges and 733 deaths. There were notable differences in age, ethnicity, comorbidities, and admission disease severity between wave 1 and wave 2. Twenty-eight-day mortality was higher during wave 1 (26.1% versus 13.1%). Mortality risk adjusted for co-variates was significantly lower in wave 2 compared to wave 1 [adjSHR 0.49 (0.37, 0.65) p<0.001]. Analysis of treatment impact did not show statistically different effects of remdesivir [HR 0.84 (95%CI 0.65, 1.08), p = 0.17] or dexamethasone [HR 0.97 (95%CI 0.70, 1.35) p = 0.87]. CONCLUSION: There has been substantial improvements in COVID-19 mortality in the second wave, even accounting for demographics, comorbidity, and disease severity. Neither dexamethasone nor remdesivir appeared to be key explanatory factors, although there may be unmeasured confounding present.

Improving communication on medical ward rounds with patients who speak limited English with implementation of medical communication charts.

AIM: To improve communication on the medical ward round with patients with limited English through implementation of a medical communication chart. LOCAL PROBLEM: King's College Hospital (KCH), London, is situated in Southwark in which 11% of households have no members that speak English as a first language, 4.1% of London's population report they do not speak English well. Language barriers impair healthcare delivery including during daily ward rounds. This has been exacerbated by the need for PPE during the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. Effective communication between healthcare teams and patients is essential for high quality, patient-centred care. Communication tools commonly used include online, telephone and face-to-face translation services but these have limitations. METHODS: Face-to-face patient questionnaires were conducted in the pre-QIP (baseline) group to assess communication on medical ward rounds. Medical communication charts were designed by adapting pre-existing aids commonly used by speech and language therapy. Charts were translated into commonly spoken languages among KCH inpatients. Patients with limited English were selected from both COVID-19 and non-Covid wards. Preintervention and postintervention questionnaires were completed in three Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. RESULTS: At baseline, patients agreed or strongly agreed that the ward round addressed physical symptoms (8/8), concerns or anxieties (7/8), ongoing needs (7/8). Only two of eight doctors felt they could communicate effectively with patients. In PDSA 1, four of five patients reported high satisfaction in communicating physical symptoms, anxieties or concerns preintervention with five of five postchart implementation. Five of five patients reported high satisfaction in communicating ongoing needs preintervention but only three of five postintervention. In PDSA 2, two of five patients reported increased satisfaction in communicating physical symptoms, concerns or anxieties with four of four doctors reporting improved satisfaction in communication in PDSA 2 and two of three doctors reporting higher satisfaction in communication in PDSA 3. CONCLUSION: Using communication charts in patients with limited English can improve bidirectional communication on medical ward rounds.

Chest radiography is a poor predictor of respiratory symptoms and functional impairment in survivors of severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: A standardised approach to assessing COVID-19 survivors has not been established, largely due to the paucity of data on medium- and long-term sequelae. Interval chest radiography is recommended following community-acquired pneumonia; however, its utility in monitoring recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia remains unclear. METHODS: This was a prospective single-centre observational cohort study. Patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (admission duration ≥48 h and oxygen requirement ≥40% or critical care admission) underwent face-to-face assessment at 4-6 weeks post-discharge. The primary outcome was radiological resolution of COVID-19 pneumonitis (Radiographic Assessment of Lung Oedema score <5). Secondary outcomes included clinical outcomes, symptom questionnaires, mental health screening (Trauma Screening Questionnaire, seven-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder assessment and nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire) and physiological testing (4-m gait speed (4MGS) and 1-min Sit-to-Stand (STS) tests). RESULTS: 119 patients were assessed between June 3, 2020 and July 2, 2020 at median (interquartile range (IQR)) 61 (51-67) days post-discharge: mean±sd age 58.7±14.4 years, median (IQR) body mass index 30.0 (25.9-35.2) kg·m-2, 62% male and 70% ethnic minority. Despite radiographic resolution of pulmonary infiltrates in 87%, modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea (breathlessness) scale grades were above pre-COVID-19 baseline in 44%, and patients reported persistent fatigue (68%), sleep disturbance (57%) and breathlessness (32%). Screening thresholds were breached for post-traumatic stress disorder (25%), anxiety (22%) and depression (18%). 4MGS was slow (<0.8 m·s-1) in 38% and 35% desaturated by ≥4% during the STS test. Of 56 thoracic computed tomography scans performed, 75% demonstrated COVID-19-related interstitial and/or airways disease. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent symptoms, adverse mental health outcomes and physiological impairment are common 2 months after severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Follow-up chest radiography is a poor marker of recovery; therefore, holistic face-to-face assessment is recommended to facilitate early recognition and management of post-COVID-19 sequelae.

Clozapine prescribing in COVID-19 positive medical inpatients: a case series.

There is both uncertainty regarding the safety of clozapine in COVID-19 patients owing to limited published data and a lack of consensus on continuing clozapine in patients with severe respiratory infections. COVID-19 is known to induce an acute immune response which can affect haematological parameters associated with clozapine monitoring, and systemic infection may reduce clozapine clearance. Clozapine, which has been associated with worse outcomes in some pneumonias, may in theory worsen outcomes in COVID-19. Despite these concerns, there are some data to indicate it is safe to continue clozapine in COVID-19 infection. In this retrospective case series, we describe our experiences of clozapine prescribing and disease progression of eight SARS-CoV-2 positive patients on medical wards in a major London teaching hospital. In four cases clozapine was stopped during the hospital admission. A COVID-19 pneumonia developed in four patients: three of these required intensive care unit admission for an average of 34 days. At the time of writing, three patients had died (two directly from COVID-19 pneumonia), two remained in general hospital wards, two were recovering in the community and one had been transferred to an inpatient psychiatric hospital. Follow-up length varied but in each case was not more than 104 days. Delirium was the most common adverse neuropsychiatric event, and in one case a relapse of psychosis occurred after cessation of clozapine. This retrospective case series illustrates the safe use of clozapine during COVID-19 infection. Our experiences suggest that consideration should be made to continuing clozapine even in those most unwell with COVID-19. We also identify areas which require larger scale hypothesis-testing research.

British Thoracic Society Quality Standards for outpatient management of pulmonary embolism.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of the quality standards document is to provide healthcare professionals, commissioners, service providers and patients with a guide to standards of care that should be met for outpatient management of pulmonary embolism in the UK, together with measurable markers of good practice. Quality statements are based on the British Thoracic Society (BTS) Guideline for the Initial Outpatient Management of Pulmonary Embolism. METHODS: Development of BTS Quality Standards follows the BTS process of quality standard production based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence process manual for the development of quality standards. RESULTS: Six quality statements have been developed, each describing a standard of care for the outpatient management of pulmonary embolism in the UK, together with measurable markers of good practice. DISCUSSION: BTS Quality Standards for Outpatient Management of Pulmonary Embolism form a key part of the range of supporting materials that the society produces to assist in the dissemination and implementation of a guideline's recommendations.

Prognostic variables and scores identifying the end of life in COPD: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: COPD is a major cause of mortality, and the unpredictable trajectory of the disease can bring challenges to end-of-life care. We aimed to investigate known prognostic variables and scores that predict prognosis in COPD in a systematic literature review, specifically including variables that contribute to risk assessment of patients for death within 12 months. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review on prognostic variables, multivariate score or models for COPD. Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane database, Cochrane CENTRAL, DARE and CINAHL were searched up to May 1, 2016. RESULTS: A total of 5,276 abstracts were screened, leading to 516 full-text reviews, and 10 met the inclusion criteria. No multivariable indices were developed with the specific aim of predicting all-cause mortality in stable COPD within 12 months. Only nine indices were identified from four studies, which had been validated for this time period. Tools developed using expert knowledge were also identified, including the Gold Standards Framework Prognostic Indicator Guidance, the RADboud Indicators of Palliative Care Needs, the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool and the Necesidades Paliativas program tool. CONCLUSION: A number of variables contributing to the prediction of all-cause mortality in COPD were identified. However, there are very few studies that are designed to assess, or report, the prediction of mortality at or less than 12 months. The quality of evidence remains low, such that no single variable or multivariable score can currently be recommended.

Prognostic variables and scores identifying the last year of life in COPD: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: People living with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) suffer from significant morbidity, reduced quality of life and high mortality, and are likely to benefit from many aspects of a palliative care approach. Prognostic estimates are a meaningful part of decision-making and better evidence for such estimates would facilitate advance care planning. We aim to provide quality evidence on known prognostic variables and scores which predict a prognosis in COPD of <12 months for use in the community. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials, prospective and retrospective longitudinal cohort and case-control studies on prognostic variables, multivariate scores or models for COPD. The search will cover the period up to April 2016. Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, with data extraction using fields from the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist for multivariate models, and study quality will be assessed using a modified version of the Quality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and national and international conference presentations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016033866.

Successful collaboration in education: the UMeP.

BACKGROUND: As the health care education landscape in the UK changes rapidly and dramatically, collaboration across institutions bridging undergraduate and postgraduate fields is increasingly necessary. Collaboration entails both risks and benefits. There is a paucity of advice on how to ensure collaborative projects in medical education are effective. There is a paucity of advice on how to ensure collaborative projects in medical education are effective CONTEXT: In 2011 three medical schools began a collaborative project along with NHS Education for Scotland (NES) to modify, develop and deliver a medical school version of the NES foundation programme ePortfolio, called UMeP. The underlying principal was the introduction of an authentic ePortfolio early in undergraduate life. The challenge of three diverse medical schools with significantly different curricula and assessment approaches working together with a single postgraduate ePortfolio was complex and demanding. DISCUSSION: We reveal the complexities of collaboration on education projects and draw on our experiences to provide illustrative examples of collaboration. Despite the increased complexity and need for compromise, we argue that successful collaborative partnerships are key to maximising the circumstances in which education innovation can be successful, and create the potential for robust evaluation and research.