Magnitude and time to peak oxygenation effect of prone positioning in ventilated adults with COVID-19 related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning may improve oxygenation in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and was widely adopted in COVID-19 patients. However, the magnitude and timing of its peak oxygenation effect remain uncertain with the optimum dosage unknown. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the magnitude of the peak effect of prone positioning on the PaO2 :FiO2 ratio during prone and secondly, the time to peak oxygenation. METHODS: Multi-centre, observational study of invasively ventilated adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 treated with prone positioning. Baseline characteristics, prone positioning and patient outcome data were collected. All arterial blood gas (ABG) data during supine, prone and after return to supine position were analysed. The magnitude of peak PaO2 :FiO2 ratio effect and time to peak PaO2 :FIO2 ratio effect was measured. RESULTS: We studied 220 patients (mean age 54 years) and 548 prone episodes. Prone positioning was applied for a mean (±SD) 3 (±2) times and 16 (±3) hours per episode. Pre-proning PaO2 :FIO2 ratio was 137 (±49) for all prone episodes. During the first episode. the mean PaO2 :FIO2 ratio increased from 125 to a peak of 196 (p < .001). Peak effect was achieved during the first episode, after 9 (±5) hours in prone position and maintained until return to supine position. CONCLUSIONS: In ventilated adults with COVID-19 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, peak PaO2 :FIO2 ratio effect occurred during the first prone positioning episode and after 9 h. Subsequent episodes also improved oxygenation but with diminished effect on PaO2 :FIO2 ratio. This information can help guide the number and duration of prone positioning episodes.

What if we consider research teams as teams?

Research teams are an important means by which knowledge is generated in Health Professions Education (HPE). Although funding agencies encourage the formation of interdisciplinary and interprofessional research teams, we know little about how our interdisciplinary and interprofessional research teams are functioning, nor how best to ensure their success. Indeed, while HPE Scholarship Units and research environments have been the object of study, little work has been focused on research teams themselves. In this article, the authors propose that research teams should be studied as unique instantiations of teams where several individuals work together towards a common goal. Considering research teams as a team can encourage attention to how effective teams are built, supported, and celebrated, it can acknowledge that competent individuals may form incompetent teams, and it opens important avenues for future research. Turning our attention to better understanding how and when research teams thrive should support the development of more effective teams; resulting in reduced waste and redundancy, better mobilization of team members' time and skills, and enhanced knowledge generation. Considering research teams as teams, encourages an understanding that these teams require care, commitment, and effort to sustain them, and it acknowledges that pursuing research in a team context is both a collaborative and a social endeavour.

Complications associated with prone positioning in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients: A multicentre, retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Prone positioning is commonly applied to improve gas exchange in mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Whilst prone positioning is effective, specific complications may arise. We aimed to assess the prevalence of specific complications related to prone positioning in patients mechanically ventilated for COVID-19-related ARDS. DESIGN: Multicentre, retrospective observational study. METHODS: Multi-centre observational study of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19-related ARDS admitted to intensive care units in Melbourne, Australia, from August to November 2021. Data on baseline characteristics, prone positioning, complications, and patient outcomes were collected. RESULTS: We assessed 553 prone episodes in 220 patients across seven sites (mean ± standard deviation age: 54 ± 13 years, 61% male). Overall, 58% (127/220) of patients experienced at least one prone-positioning-related complication. Pressure injury was the most prevalent (n = 92/220, 42%) complication reported. Factors associated with increased risk of pressure injury were male sex (adjusted odds ratio = 1.15, 95% confidence interval: [1.02-1.31]) and the total number of prone episodes (adjusted odds ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval: [1.07-1.15]). Device dislodgement was the next most common complication, occurring in 28 of 220 (13%) patients. There were no nerve or retinal injuries reported. CONCLUSIONS: Pressure injuries and line dislodgement were the most prevalent complications associated with prone positioning of patients mechanically ventilated for COVID-19. The risk of pressure injuries was associated with male sex and the number of prone positioning episodes.

Sodium Bicarbonate for Metabolic Acidosis in the ICU: Results of a Pilot Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the best population, design of the intervention, and to assess between-group biochemical separation, in preparation for a future phase III trial. DESIGN: Investigator-initiated, parallel-group, pilot randomized double-blind trial. SETTING: Eight ICUs in Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, with participants recruited from April 2021 to August 2022. PATIENTS: Thirty patients greater than or equal to 18 years, within 48 hours of admission to the ICU, receiving a vasopressor, and with metabolic acidosis (pH < 7.30, base excess [BE] < -4 mEq/L, and Pa co2 < 45 mm Hg). INTERVENTIONS: Sodium bicarbonate or placebo (5% dextrose). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULT: The primary feasibility aim was to assess eligibility, recruitment rate, protocol compliance, and acid-base group separation. The primary clinical outcome was the number of hours alive and free of vasopressors on day 7. The recruitment rate and the enrollment-to-screening ratio were 1.9 patients per month and 0.13 patients, respectively. Time until BE correction (median difference, -45.86 [95% CI, -63.11 to -28.61] hr; p < 0.001) and pH correction (median difference, -10.69 [95% CI, -19.16 to -2.22] hr; p = 0.020) were shorter in the sodium bicarbonate group, and mean bicarbonate levels in the first 24 hours were higher (median difference, 6.50 [95% CI, 4.18 to 8.82] mmol/L; p < 0.001). Seven days after randomization, patients in the sodium bicarbonate and placebo group had a median of 132.2 (85.6-139.1) and 97.1 (69.3-132.4) hours alive and free of vasopressor, respectively (median difference, 35.07 [95% CI, -9.14 to 79.28]; p = 0.131). Recurrence of metabolic acidosis in the first 7 days of follow-up was lower in the sodium bicarbonate group (3 [20.0%] vs. 15 [100.0%]; p < 0.001). No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The findings confirm the feasibility of a larger phase III sodium bicarbonate trial; eligibility criteria may require modification to facilitate recruitment.

Action-project method: An approach to describing and studying goal-oriented joint actions.

CONTEXT: Practicing health professionals and educators frequently act together in an interdependent or joint capacity to reach goals. Teaching or learning a new skill or engaging with patients in shared decision-making exemplifies this joint and goal-directed nature of Health Professions Education (HPE) and practice. However, building a robust understanding of the complexity of action, and joint action in particular, in HPE or patient care remains a challenge because of a limited number of methodologies available within HPE research. METHODS: In this manuscript, we describe the Action-Project Method (A-PM) as a qualitative research approach that can be used to describe and understand goal-directed joint actions. A-PM is grounded in contextual action theory and is a methodology focussed on action as an object of study, as it is occurring. A-PM uses three distinct perspectives to understand goal-directed joint actions: observable behaviour, internal processes (i.e. reported thoughts and feelings) and the social meaning reflected in goals. Data collection in A-PM involves observations, interviews, recording of actions and a self-confrontation procedure-where participants watch video-recorded segments of action and reflect on their internal processes, describing what they were thinking or feeling as they were completing the action. Together, the rich data generated and the layered approach to analysis provide a means to better understand the joint actions embedded in complex systems and collaborative work. Furthermore, the participants are treated as equal partners within A-PM, ensuring data equity even when the research context includes hierarchical relationships. DISCUSSION: Given increasing recognition to the importance of teamwork, relationships, interdependence, complex environments and centring patient or learner voices, A-PM is a valuable research approach for HPE. A-PM deepens our research arsenal with an approach that focusses on interdependent dyads or teams and provides a deeper understanding for how individuals engage together in goal-oriented actions.

An exploration of values in medical school admissions processes: the interplay between contextual factors, admissions practices, and validity.

Medical school admissions is a contentious and high stakes selection activity. Many assessment approaches are available to support selection; but how are decisions about building, monitoring, and adapting admissions systems made? What shapes the processes and practices that underpin selection decisions? We explore how these decisions are made across several Canadian medical schools, and how values shape the creation, monitoring, and adaptation of admissions systems. Using phenomenography (a qualitative method suited to examining variability), the authors analyzed interviews with 10 current or previous heads of admissions from 10 different undergraduate medical education programs in Canada. Interviews were conducted in English and French, and data was collected between 2016 and 2017 (therefore participants no longer hold these roles). Data was coded and analyzed iteratively, focusing on identifying underlying values, and exploring how these values shape admissions practices and considerations for validity. Eight different intersecting values were identified. Of these, four were shared across all participants: critically questioning the process and tools, aiming for equity, striving for better, and embracing the challenges of change. The expression of these values depended on different contextual variables (e.g., geographic location, access to expertise, resource availability), and values shaped how admissions systems were built, enacted, and monitored for quality. Ultimately, values shaped: (1) admissions practices resulting in different candidates being offered admission, and (2) how arguments supporting score interpretation are built (i.e., validity). This study documents various values that influence admissions processes, practices, and quality monitoring. The values that shape what is assessed, how it is assessed, and how fair and defensible practices are conceptualized have significant impact, ultimately determining who is selected. These values-whether implicit or explicit-result in intended and unintended consequences in selection processes. However, these values are rarely explicitly examined and questioned, leaving it uncertain as to which consequences are the intended outcomes of deliberately chosen values, and which are unintended consequences of implicitly held values of admissions systems and their actors.

The impact of prior performance information on subsequent assessment: is there evidence of retaliation in an anonymous multisource assessment system?

Few studies have engaged in data-driven investigations of the presence, or frequency, of what could be considered retaliatory assessor behaviour in Multi-source Feedback (MSF) systems. In this study, authors explored how assessors scored others if, before assessing others, they received their own assessment score. The authors examined assessments from an established MSF system in which all clinical team members - medical students, interns, residents, fellows, and supervisors - anonymously assessed each other. The authors identified assessments in which an assessor (i.e., any team member providing a score to another) gave an aberrant score to another individual. An aberrant score was defined as one that was more than two standard deviations from the assessment receiver's average score. Assessors who gave aberrant scores were categorized according to whether their behaviour was preceded by: (1) receiving a score or not from another individual in the MSF system (2) whether the score they received was aberrant or not. The authors used a multivariable logistic regression model to investigate the association between the type of score received and the type of score given by that same individual. In total, 367 unique assessors provided 6091 scores on the performance of 484 unique individuals. Aberrant scores were identified in 250 forms (4.1%). The chances of giving an aberrant score were 2.3 times higher for those who had received a score, compared to those who had not (odds ratio 2.30, 95% CI:1.54-3.44, P < 0.001). Individuals who had received an aberrant score were also 2.17 times more likely to give an aberrant score to others compared to those who had received a non-aberrant score (2.17, 95% CI:1.39-3.39, P < 0.005) after adjusting for all other variables. This study documents an association between receiving scores within an anonymous multi-source feedback (MSF) system and providing aberrant scores to team members. These findings suggest care must be given to designing MSF systems to protect against potential downstream consequences of providing and receiving anonymous feedback.

Pilot Study Evaluating Cross-Disciplinary Educational Material to Improve Patients' Knowledge of Palliative Radiation Therapy.

Palliative radiation therapy (PRT) is underutilized, partially due to misconceptions about its risks, benefits, and indications. The objective of this pilot study was to determine if patients with metastatic cancer would gain knowledge from educational material describing PRT and perceive it as useful in their care. A one-page handout conveying information about the purpose, logistics, benefits, risks, and common indications for PRT was offered to patients undergoing treatment for incurable, metastatic solid tumors in one palliative care clinic and four medical oncology clinics. Participants read the handout, then completed a questionnaire assessing its perceived value. Seventy patients participated between June and December 2021. Sixty-five patients (93%) felt they learned from the handout (40% learned "lots"), and 69 (99%) felt the information was useful (53% "very useful"). Twenty-one patients (30%) were previously unaware that PRT can relieve symptoms, 55 (79%) were unaware that PRT can be delivered in five treatments or less, and 43 (61%) were unaware that PRT usually has few side effects. Sixteen patients (23%) felt they currently had symptoms not being treated well enough, and 34 (49%) felt they had symptoms that radiation might help with. Afterwards, most patients felt more comfortable bringing symptoms to a medical oncologist's (n = 57, 78%) or radiation oncologist's (n = 51, 70%) attention. Patient-directed educational material about PRT, provided outside of a radiation oncology department, was perceived by patients as improving their knowledge and adding value in their care, independent of prior exposure to a radiation oncologist.

Comparison of 6-month outcomes of sepsis versus non-sepsis critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Data on long-term outcomes after sepsis-associated critical illness have mostly come from small cohort studies, with no information about the incidence of new disability. We investigated whether sepsis-associated critical illness was independently associated with new disability at 6 months after ICU admission compared with other types of critical illness. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective cohort study in six metropolitan intensive care units in Australia. Adult patients were eligible if they had been admitted to the ICU and received more than 24 h of mechanical ventilation. There was no intervention. RESULTS: The primary outcome was new disability measured with the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS) 12 level score compared between baseline and 6 months. Between enrollment and follow-up at 6 months, 222/888 (25%) patients died, 100 (35.5%) with sepsis and 122 (20.1%) without sepsis (P < 0.001). Among survivors, there was no difference for the incidence of new disability at 6 months with or without sepsis, 42/106 (39.6%) and 106/300 (35.3%) (RD, 0.00 (- 10.29 to 10.40), P = 0.995), respectively. In addition, there was no difference in the severity of disability, health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress, return to work, financial distress or cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to mechanically ventilated patients of similar acuity and length of stay without sepsis, patients with sepsis admitted to ICU have an increased risk of death, but survivors have a similar risk of new disability at 6 months. Trial registration NCT03226912, registered July 24, 2017.

It's Not Just the Prices: Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing for Initiation of Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation at Three International Sites-A Case Review.

The United States spends more for intensive care units (ICUs) than do other high-income countries. We used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to analyze ICU costs for initiation of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) for respiratory failure to estimate how much of the higher ICU costs at 1 US site can be attributed to the higher prices paid to ICU personnel, and how much is caused by the US site's use of a higher cost staffing model. We accompanied our TDABC approach with narrative review of the ECMO programs, at Cedars-Sinai (Los Angeles), Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière (Paris), and The Alfred Hospital (Melbourne) from 2017 to 2019. Our primary outcome was daily ECMO cost, and we hypothesized that cost differences among the hospitals could be explained by the efficiencies and skill mix of involved clinicians and prices paid for personnel, equipment, and consumables. Our results are presented relative to Los Angeles' total personnel cost per VV ECMO patient day, indexed at 100. Los Angeles' total indexed daily cost of care was 147 (personnel: 100, durables: 5, and disposables: 42). Paris' total cost was 39 (26% of Los Angeles) (personnel: 12, durables: 1, and disposables: 26). Melbourne's total cost was 53 (36% of Los Angeles) (personnel: 32, durables: 2, and disposables: 19) (rounded). The higher personnel prices at Los Angeles explained only 26% of its much higher personnel costs than Paris, and 21% relative to Melbourne. Los Angeles' higher staffing levels accounted for 49% (36%), and its costlier mix of personnel accounted for 12% (10%) of its higher personnel costs relative to Paris (Melbourne). Unadjusted discharge rates for ECMO patients were 46% in Los Angeles (46%), 56% in Paris, and 52% in Melbourne. We found that personnel salaries explained only 30% of the higher personnel costs at 1 Los Angeles hospital. Most of the cost differential was caused by personnel staffing intensity and mix. This study demonstrates how TDABC may be used in ICU administration to quantify the savings that 1 US hospital could achieve by delivering the same quality of care with fewer and less-costly mix of clinicians compared to a French and Australian site. Narrative reviews contextualized how the care models evolved at each site and helped identify potential barriers to change.

Factors affecting perceived credibility of assessment in medical education: A scoping review.

Assessment is more educationally effective when learners engage with assessment processes and perceive the feedback received as credible. With the goal of optimizing the educational value of assessment in medical education, we mapped the primary literature to identify factors that may affect a learner's perceptions of the credibility of assessment and assessment-generated feedback (i.e., scores or narrative comments). For this scoping review, search strategies were developed and executed in five databases. Eligible articles were primary research studies with medical learners (i.e., medical students to post-graduate fellows) as the focal population, discussed assessment of individual learners, and reported on perceived credibility in the context of assessment or assessment-generated feedback. We identified 4705 articles published between 2000 and November 16, 2020. Abstracts were screened by two reviewers; disagreements were adjudicated by a third reviewer. Full-text review resulted in 80 articles included in this synthesis. We identified three sets of intertwined factors that affect learners' perceived credibility of assessment and assessment-generated feedback: (i) elements of an assessment process, (ii) learners' level of training, and (iii) context of medical education. Medical learners make judgments regarding the credibility of assessments and assessment-generated feedback, which are influenced by a variety of individual, process, and contextual factors. Judgments of credibility appear to influence what information will or will not be used to improve later performance. For assessment to be educationally valuable, design and use of assessment-generated feedback should consider how learners interpret, use, or discount assessment-generated feedback.

The impact of distance on post-ICU disability.

BACKGROUND: Nonurban residential living is associated with adverse outcomes for a number of chronic health conditions. However, it is unclear what effect it has amongst survivors of critical illness. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to determine whether patients living greater than 50 km from the treating intensive care unit (ICU) have disability outcomes at 6 months that differ from people living within 50 km. METHODS: This was a multicentre, prospective cohort study conducted in five metropolitan ICUs. Participants were adults admitted to the ICU, who received >24 h of mechanical ventilation and survived to hospital discharge. In a secondary analysis of these data, the cohort was dichotomised based on residential distance from the treating ICU: <50 km and ≥50 km. The primary outcome was patient-reported disability using the 12-item World Health Organization's Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0). This was recorded at 6 months after ICU admission by telephone interview. Secondary outcomes included health status as measured by EQ-5D-5L return to work and psychological function as measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between distance from the ICU and moderate to severe disability, adjusted for potential confounders. Variables included in the multivariable model were deemed to be clinically relevant and had baseline imbalance between groups (p < 0.10). These included marital status and hours of mechanical ventilation. Sensitivity analysis was also conducted using distance in kilometres as a continuous variable. RESULTS: A total of 262 patients were enrolled, and 169 (65%) lived within 50 km of the treating ICU and 93 (35%) lived ≥50 km from the treating ICU (interquartile range [IQR] 10-664 km). There was no difference in patient-reported disability at 6 months between patients living <50 km and those living ≥50 km (WHODAS total disability % [IQR] 10.4 [2.08-25] v 14.6 [2.08-20.8], P = 0.74). There was also no difference between groups for the six major life domains of the WHODAS. There was no difference in rates of anxiety or depression as measured by HADS score (HADS anxiety median [IQR] 4 [1-7] v 3 [1-7], P = 0.60) (HADS depression median [IQR] 3 [1-6] v 3 [1-6], P = 0.62); health status as measured by EQ-5D (mean [SD] 66.7 [20] v 69.8 [22.2], P = 0.24); or health-related unemployment (% (N) 39 [26] v 25 [29.1], P = 0.61). After adjusting for confounders, living ≥50 km from the treating ICU was not associated with increased disability (odds ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval: 0.33-1.16; P = 0.13) CONCLUSIONS: Survivors of intensive care in Victoria, Australia, who live at least 50 km from the treating ICU did not have greater disability than people living less than 50 km at 6 months after discharge. Living 50 km or more from the treating ICU was not associated with disability, nor was it associated with anxiety or depression, health status, or unemployment due to health.

A Scoping Review of Physicians' Clinical Reasoning in Emergency Departments.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Clinical reasoning is considered a core competency of physicians. Yet there is a paucity of research on clinical reasoning specifically in emergency medicine, as highlighted in the literature. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to examine the state of research on clinical reasoning in this specialty. Our team, composed of content and methodological experts, identified 3,763 articles in the literature, 95 of which were included. RESULTS: Most studies were published after 2000. Few studies focused on the cognitive processes involved in decisionmaking (ie, clinical reasoning). Of these, many confirmed findings from the general literature on clinical reasoning; specifically, the role of both intuitive and analytic processes. We categorized factors that influence decisionmaking into contextual, patient, and physician factors. Many studies focused on decisions in regard to investigations and admission. Test ordering is influenced by physicians' experience, fear of litigation, and concerns about malpractice. Fear of litigation and malpractice also increases physicians' propensity to admit patients. Context influences reasoning but findings pertaining to specific factors, such as patient flow and workload, were inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Many studies used designs such as descriptive or correlational methods, limiting the strength of findings. Many gray areas persist, in which studies are either scarce or yield conflicting results. The findings of this scoping review should encourage us to intensify research in the field of emergency physicians' clinical reasoning, particularly on the cognitive processes at play and the factors influencing them, using appropriate theoretical frameworks and more robust methods.

Maximal Recruitment Open Lung Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (PHARLAP). A Phase II, Multicenter Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Open lung ventilation strategies have been recommended in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).Objectives: To determine whether a maximal lung recruitment strategy reduces ventilator-free days in patients with ARDS.Methods: A phase II, multicenter randomized controlled trial in adults with moderate to severe ARDS. Patients received maximal lung recruitment, titrated positive end expiratory pressure and further Vt limitation, or control "protective" ventilation.Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome was ventilator-free days at Day 28. Secondary outcomes included mortality, barotrauma, new use of hypoxemic adjuvant therapies, and ICU and hospital stay. Enrollment halted October 2, 2017, after publication of ART (Alveolar Recruitment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Trial), when 115 of a planned 340 patients had been randomized (57% male; mean age, 53.6 yr). At 28 days after randomization, there was no difference between the maximal lung recruitment and control ventilation strategies in ventilator-free days (median, 16 d [interquartile range (IQR), 0-21 d], n = 57, vs. 14.5 d [IQR, 0-21.5 d], n = 56; P = 0.95), mortality (24.6% [n = 14/56] vs. 26.8% [n = 15/56]; P = 0.79), or the rate of barotrauma (5.2% [n = 3/57] vs. 10.7% [n = 6/56]; P = 0.32). However, the intervention group showed reduced use of new hypoxemic adjuvant therapies (i.e., inhaled nitric oxide, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, prone; median change from baseline 0 [IQR, 0-1] vs. 1 [IQR, 0-1]; P = 0.004) and increased rates of new cardiac arrhythmia (n = 17 [29%] vs. n = 7 [13%]; P = 0.03).Conclusions: Compared with control ventilation, maximal lung recruitment did not reduce the duration of ventilation-free days or mortality and was associated with increased cardiovascular adverse events but lower use of hypoxemic adjuvant therapies.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01667146).

Scoping reviews in health professions education: challenges, considerations and lessons learned about epistemology and methodology.

Scoping reviews are increasingly used in health professions education to synthesize research and scholarship, and to report on the depth and breadth of the literature on a given topic. In this Perspective, we argue that the philosophical stance scholars adopt during the execution of a scoping review, including the meaning they attribute to fundamental concepts such as knowledge and evidence, influences how they gather, analyze, and interpret information obtained from a heterogeneous body of literature. We highlight the principles informing scoping reviews and outline how epistemology-the aspect of philosophy that "deals with questions involving the nature of knowledge, the justification of beliefs, and rationality"-should guide methodological considerations, toward the aim of ensuring the production of a high-quality review with defensible and appropriate conclusions. To contextualize our claims, we illustrate some of the methodological challenges we have personally encountered while executing a scoping review on clinical reasoning and reflect on how these challenges could have been reconciled through a broader understanding of the methodology's philosophical foundation. We conclude with a description of lessons we have learned that might usefully inform other scholars who are considering undertaking a scoping review in their own domains of inquiry.

Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical reasoning is at the core of health professionals' practice. A mapping of what constitutes clinical reasoning could support the teaching, development, and assessment of clinical reasoning across the health professions. METHODS: We conducted a scoping study to map the literature on clinical reasoning across health professions literature in the context of a larger Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) review on clinical reasoning assessment. Seven databases were searched using subheadings and terms relating to clinical reasoning, assessment, and Health Professions. Data analysis focused on a comprehensive analysis of bibliometric characteristics and the use of varied terminology to refer to clinical reasoning. RESULTS: Literature identified: 625 papers spanning 47 years (1968-2014), in 155 journals, from 544 first authors, across eighteen Health Professions. Thirty-seven percent of papers used the term clinical reasoning; and 110 other terms referring to the concept of clinical reasoning were identified. Consensus on the categorization of terms was reached for 65 terms across six different categories: reasoning skills, reasoning performance, reasoning process, outcome of reasoning, context of reasoning, and purpose/goal of reasoning. Categories of terminology used differed across Health Professions and publication types. DISCUSSION: Many diverse terms were present and were used differently across literature contexts. These terms likely reflect different operationalisations, or conceptualizations, of clinical reasoning as well as the complex, multi-dimensional nature of this concept. We advise authors to make the intended meaning of 'clinical reasoning' and associated terms in their work explicit in order to facilitate teaching, assessment, and research communication.

The terminology of clinical reasoning in health professions education: Implications and considerations.

Introduction: Clinical reasoning is considered to be at the core of health practice. Here, we report on the diversity and inferred meanings of the terms used to refer to clinical reasoning and consider implications for teaching and assessment. Methods: In the context of a Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) review of 625 papers drawn from 18 health professions, we identified 110 terms for clinical reasoning. We focus on iterative categorization of these terms across three phases of coding and considerations for how terminology influences educational practices. Results: Following iterative coding with 5 team members, consensus was possible for 74, majority coding was possible for 16, and full team disagreement existed for 20 terms. Categories of terms included: purpose/goal of reasoning, outcome of reasoning, reasoning performance, reasoning processes, reasoning skills, and context of reasoning. Discussion: Findings suggest that terms used in reference to clinical reasoning are non-synonymous, not uniformly understood, and the level of agreement differed across terms. If the language we use to describe, to teach, or to assess clinical reasoning is not similarly understood across clinical teachers, program directors, and learners, this could lead to confusion regarding what the educational or assessment targets are for "clinical reasoning."

Emotions and assessment: considerations for rater-based judgements of entrustment.

CONTEXT: Assessment is subject to increasing scrutiny as medical education transitions towards a competency-based medical education (CBME) model. Traditional perspectives on the roles of assessment emphasise high-stakes, summative assessment, whereas CBME argues for formative assessment. Revisiting conceptualisations about the roles and formats of assessment in medical education provides opportunities to examine understandings and expectations of the assessment of learners. The act of the rater generating scores might be considered as an exclusively cognitive exercise; however, current literature has drawn attention to the notion of raters as measurement instruments, thereby attributing additional factors to their decision-making processes, such as social considerations and intuition. However, the literature has not comprehensively examined the influence of raters' emotions during assessment. In this narrative review, we explore the influence of raters' emotions in the assessment of learners. METHODS: We summarise existing literature that describes the role of emotions in assessment broadly, and rater-based assessment specifically, across a variety of fields. The literature related to emotions and assessment is examined from different perspectives, including those of educational context, decision making and rater cognition. We use the concept of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) to contextualise a discussion of the ways in which raters' emotions may have meaningful impacts on the decisions they make in clinical settings. This review summarises findings from different perspectives and identifies areas for consideration for the role of emotion in rater-based assessment, and areas for future research. CONCLUSIONS: We identify and discuss three different interpretations of the influence of raters' emotions during assessments: (i) emotions lead to biased decision making; (ii) emotions contribute random noise to assessment, and (iii) emotions constitute legitimate sources of information that contribute to assessment decisions. We discuss these three interpretations in terms of areas for future research and implications for assessment.

Validity as a social imperative for assessment in health professions education: a concept analysis.

CONTEXT: Assessment can have far-reaching consequences for future health care professionals and for society. Thus, it is essential to establish the quality of assessment. Few modern approaches to validity are well situated to ensure the quality of complex assessment approaches, such as authentic and programmatic assessments. Here, we explore and delineate the concept of validity as a social imperative in the context of assessment in health professions education (HPE) as a potential framework for examining the quality of complex and programmatic assessment approaches. METHODS: We conducted a concept analysis using Rodgers' evolutionary method to describe the concept of validity as a social imperative in the context of assessment in HPE. Supported by an academic librarian, we developed and executed a search strategy across several databases for literature published between 1995 and 2016. From a total of 321 citations, we identified 67 articles that met our inclusion criteria. Two team members analysed the texts using a specified approach to qualitative data analysis. Consensus was achieved through full team discussions. RESULTS: Attributes that characterise the concept were: (i) demonstration of the use of evidence considered credible by society to document the quality of assessment; (ii) validation embedded through the assessment process and score interpretation; (iii) documented validity evidence supporting the interpretation of the combination of assessment findings, and (iv) demonstration of a justified use of a variety of evidence (quantitative and qualitative) to document the quality of assessment strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The emerging concept of validity as a social imperative highlights some areas of focus in traditional validation frameworks, whereas some characteristics appear unique to HPE and move beyond traditional frameworks. The study reflects the importance of embedding consideration for society and societal concerns throughout the assessment and validation process, and may represent a potential lens through which to examine the quality of complex and programmatic assessment approaches.

The challenges of detecting progress in generic competencies in the clinical setting.

CONTEXT: Competency-based medical education has spurred the implementation of longitudinal workplace-based assessment (WBA) programmes to track learners' development of competencies. These hinge on the appropriate use of assessment instruments by assessors. This study aimed to validate our assessment programme and specifically to explore whether assessors' beliefs and behaviours rendered the detection of progress possible. METHODS: We implemented a longitudinal WBA programme in the third year of a primarily rotation-based clerkship. The programme used the professionalism mini-evaluation exercise (P-MEX) to detect progress in generic competencies. We used mixed methods: a retrospective psychometric examination of student assessment data in one academic year, and a prospective focus group and interview study of assessors' beliefs and reported behaviours related to the assessment. RESULTS: We analysed 1662 assessment forms for 186 students. We conducted interviews and focus groups with 21 assessors from different professions and disciplines. Scores were excellent from the outset (3.5-3.7/4), with no meaningful increase across blocks (average overall scores: 3.6 in block 1 versus 3.7 in blocks 2 and 3; F = 8.310, d.f. 2, p < 0.001). The main source of variance was the forms (47%) and only 1% of variance was attributable to students, which led to low generalisability across forms (Eρ2  = 0.18). Assessors reported using multiple observations to produce their assessments and were reluctant to harm students by consigning anything negative to writing. They justified the use of a consistent benchmark across time by citing the basic nature of the form or a belief that the 'competencies' assessed were in fact fixed attributes that were unlikely to change. CONCLUSIONS: Assessors may purposefully deviate from instructions in order to meet their ethical standards of good assessment. Furthermore, generic competencies may be viewed as intrinsic and fixed rather than as learnable. Implementing a longitudinal WBA programme is complex and requires careful consideration of assessors' beliefs and values.