NON-pharmacological Approach Less Invasive Surfactant Administration (NONA-LISA) trial: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Using pre-procedure analgesia with the risk of apnoea may complicate the Less Invasive Surfactant Administration (LISA) procedure or reduce the effect of LISA. METHODS: The NONA-LISA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05609877) is a multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trial aiming at including 324 infants born before 30 gestational weeks, meeting the criteria for surfactant treatment by LISA. Infants will be randomised to LISA after administration of fentanyl 0.5-1 mcg/kg intravenously (fentanyl group) or isotonic saline solution intravenously (saline group). All infants will receive standardised non-pharmacological comfort care before and during the LISA procedure. Additional analgesics will be provided at the clinician's discretion. The primary outcome is the need for invasive ventilation, meaning mechanical or manual ventilation via an endotracheal tube, for at least 30 min (cumulated) within 24 h of the procedure. Secondary outcomes include the modified COMFORTneo score during the procedure, bronchopulmonary dysplasia at 36 weeks, and mortality at 36 weeks. DISCUSSION: The NONA-LISA trial has the potential to provide evidence for a standardised approach to relief from discomfort in preterm infants during LISA and to reduce invasive ventilation. The results may affect future clinical practice. IMPACT: Pre-procedure analgesia is associated with apnoea and may complicate procedures that rely on regular spontaneous breathing, such as Less Invasive Surfactant Administration (LISA). This randomised controlled trial addresses the effect of analgesic premedication in LISA by comparing fentanyl with a placebo (isotonic saline) in infants undergoing the LISA procedure. All infants will receive standardised non-pharmacological comfort. The NONA-LISA trial has the potential to provide evidence for a standardised approach to relief from discomfort or pain in preterm infants during LISA and to reduce invasive ventilation. The results may affect future clinical practice regarding analgesic treatment associated with the LISA procedure.

Clinical implementation of first trimester screening for congenital heart defects.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the feasibility and performance of implementing a standardized fetal cardiac scan at the time of a routine first-trimester ultrasound scan. METHOD: A retrospective, single-center study in an unselected population between March 2021 and July 2022. A standardized cardiac scan protocol consisting of a four-chamber and 3-vessel trachea view with color Doppler was implemented as part of the routine first-trimester scan. Sonographers were asked to categorize the fetal heart anatomy. Data were stratified into two groups based on the possibility of evaluating the fetal heart. The influence of maternal and fetal characteristics and the detection of major congenital heart disease were investigated. RESULTS: A total of 5083 fetuses were included. The fetal heart evaluation was completed in 84.9%. The proportion of successful scans increased throughout the study period from 76% in the first month to 92% in the last month. High maternal body mass index and early gestational age at scan significantly decreased the feasibility. The first-trimester detection of major congenital heart defects was 7/16, of which four cases were identified by the cardiac scan protocol with no false-positive cases. CONCLUSION: First-trimester evaluation of the fetal heart by a standardized scan protocol is feasible to implement in daily practice. It can contribute to the earlier detection of congenital heart defects at a very low false positive rate.

Validity evidence supporting clinical skills assessment by artificial intelligence compared with trained clinician raters.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming increasingly used in medical education, but our understanding of the validity of AI-based assessments (AIBA) as compared with traditional clinical expert-based assessments (EBA) is limited. In this study, the authors aimed to compare and contrast the validity evidence for the assessment of a complex clinical skill based on scores generated from an AI and trained clinical experts, respectively. METHODS: The study was conducted between September 2020 to October 2022. The authors used Kane's validity framework to prioritise and organise their evidence according to the four inferences: scoring, generalisation, extrapolation and implications. The context of the study was chorionic villus sampling performed within the simulated setting. AIBA and EBA were used to evaluate performances of experts, intermediates and novice based on video recordings. The clinical experts used a scoring instrument developed in a previous international consensus study. The AI used convolutional neural networks for capturing features on video recordings, motion tracking and eye movements to arrive at a final composite score. RESULTS: A total of 45 individuals participated in the study (22 novices, 12 intermediates and 11 experts). The authors demonstrated validity evidence for scoring, generalisation, extrapolation and implications for both EBA and AIBA. The plausibility of assumptions related to scoring, evidence of reproducibility and relation to different training levels was examined. Issues relating to construct underrepresentation, lack of explainability, and threats to robustness were identified as potential weak links in the AIBA validity argument compared with the EBA validity argument. CONCLUSION: There were weak links in the use of AIBA compared with EBA, mainly in their representation of the underlying construct but also regarding their explainability and ability to transfer to other datasets. However, combining AI and clinical expert-based assessments may offer complementary benefits, which is a promising subject for future research.

Learning strategies for the advanced trainee in specialist training.

BACKGROUND: A significant factor of clinicians' learning is based on their ability to effectively transfer acquired knowledge, skills, and attitudes from specialty-specific clinical courses to their working environment. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 anaesthesiologist trainees (i.e. residents) in four group and five individual interviews using SRL principles as sensitizing concepts. Data were collected and analyzed iteratively using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Advanced trainees are highly motivated to explore what they have learned in specialty-specific courses, but they often face several barriers in implementing their learning in the workplace environment. Four themes emerged from the interview data: 'Be ready to learn', "Take the 'take-home-messages' home', "Be ready to create your own opportunities', and "Face it, it's not entirely up to you'. Understanding the challenges regarding transferring knowledge from courses to the working environment is an important lesson for assisting trainees set their learning goals, monitor their progress, and re-evaluate their SRL processes. CONCLUSION: Even for advanced trainees, successfully transferring knowledge from specialty-specific courses often requires adequate commitment and support. Medical supervisors and other relevant stakeholders must be aware of their shared responsibility for creating individual environments that support opportunities for trainees to self-regulate their learning.

Data sharing and big data in health professions education: Ottawa consensus statement and recommendations for scholarship.

Changes in digital technology, increasing volume of data collection, and advances in methods have the potential to unleash the value of big data generated through the education of health professionals. Coupled with this potential are legitimate concerns about how data can be used or misused in ways that limit autonomy, equity, or harm stakeholders. This consensus statement is intended to address these issues by foregrounding the ethical imperatives for engaging with big data as well as the potential risks and challenges. Recognizing the wide and ever evolving scope of big data scholarship, we focus on foundational issues for framing and engaging in research. We ground our recommendations in the context of big data created through data sharing across and within the stages of the continuum of the education and training of health professionals. Ultimately, the goal of this statement is to support a culture of trust and quality for big data research to deliver on its promises for health professions education (HPE) and the health of society. Based on expert consensus and review of the literature, we report 19 recommendations in (1) framing scholarship and research through research, (2) considering unique ethical practices, (3) governance of data sharing collaborations that engage stakeholders, (4) data sharing processes best practices, (5) the importance of knowledge translation, and (6) advancing the quality of scholarship through multidisciplinary collaboration. The recommendations were modified and refined based on feedback from the 2022 Ottawa Conference attendees and subsequent public engagement. Adoption of these recommendations can help HPE scholars share data ethically and engage in high impact big data scholarship, which in turn can help the field meet the ultimate goal: high-quality education that leads to high-quality healthcare.

Validating the virtual: a deep dive into ultrasound simulator metrics in otorhinolaryngology.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the validity of simulation-based assessment of ultrasound skills for thyroid ultrasound. METHODS: The study collected validity evidence for simulation-based ultrasound assessment of thyroid ultrasound skills. Experts (n = 8) and novices (n = 21) completed a test containing two tasks and four cases on a virtual reality ultrasound simulator (U/S Mentor's Neck Ultrasound Module). Validity evidence was collected and structured according to Messick's validity framework. The assessments being evaluated included built-in simulator metrics and expert-based evaluations using the Objective Structured Assessment of Ultrasound Skills (OSAUS) scale. RESULTS: Out of 64 built-in simulator metrics, 9 (14.1%) exhibited validity evidence. The internal consistency of these metrics was strong (Cronbach's α = 0.805) with high test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.911). Novices achieved an average score of 41.9% (SD = 24.3) of the maximum, contrasting with experts at 81.9% (SD = 16.7). Time comparisons indicated minor differences between experts (median: 359 s) and novices (median: 376.5 s). All OSAUS items differed significantly between the two groups. The correlation between correctly entered clinical findings and the OSAUS scores was 0.748 (p < 0.001). The correlation between correctly entered clinical findings and the metric scores was 0.801 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While simulation-based training is promising, only 14% of built-in simulator metrics could discriminate between novices and ultrasound experts. Already-established competency frameworks such as OSAUS provided strong validity evidence for the assessment of otorhinolaryngology ultrasound competence.

Simulation-based assessment of upper abdominal ultrasound skills.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound is a safe and effective diagnostic tool used within several specialties. However, the quality of ultrasound scans relies on sufficiently skilled clinician operators. The aim of this study was to explore the validity of automated assessments of upper abdominal ultrasound skills using an ultrasound simulator. METHODS: Twenty five novices and five experts were recruited, all of whom completed an assessment program for the evaluation of upper abdominal ultrasound skills on a virtual reality simulator. The program included five modules that assessed different organ systems using automated simulator metrics. We used Messick's framework to explore the validity evidence of these simulator metrics to determine the contents of a final simulator test. We used the contrasting groups method to establish a pass/fail level for the final simulator test. RESULTS: Thirty seven out of 60 metrics were able to discriminate between novices and experts (p < 0.05). The median simulator score of the final simulator test including the metrics with validity evidence was 26.68% (range: 8.1-40.5%) for novices and 85.1% (range: 56.8-91.9%) for experts. The internal structure was assessed by Cronbach alpha (0.93) and intraclass correlation coefficient (0.89). The pass/fail level was determined to be 50.9%. This pass/fail criterion found no passing novices or failing experts. CONCLUSIONS: This study collected validity evidence for simulation-based assessment of upper abdominal ultrasound examinations, which is the first step toward competency-based training. Future studies may examine how competency-based training in the simulated setting translates into improvements in clinical performances.

Higher SARS-CoV-2 detection of oropharyngeal compared with nasopharyngeal or saliva specimen for molecular testing: a multicentre randomised comparative accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Testing is critical for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the best sampling method remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), oropharyngeal swab (OPS) or saliva specimen collection has the highest detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing. METHODS: We conducted a randomised clinical trial at two COVID-19 outpatient test centres where NPS, OPS and saliva specimens were collected by healthcare workers in different orders for reverse transcriptase PCR testing. The SARS-CoV-2 detection rate was calculated as the number positive by a specific sampling method divided by the number in which any of the three sampling methods was positive. As secondary outcomes, test-related discomfort was measured with an 11-point numeric scale and cost-effectiveness was calculated. RESULTS: Among 23 102 adults completing the trial, 381 (1.65%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive. The SARS-CoV-2 detection rate was higher for OPSs, 78.7% (95% CI 74.3 to 82.7), compared with NPSs, 72.7% (95% CI 67.9 to 77.1) (p=0.049) and compared with saliva sampling, 61.9% (95% CI 56.9 to 66.8) (p<0.001). The discomfort score was highest for NPSs, at 5.76 (SD, 2.52), followed by OPSs, at 3.16 (SD 3.16) and saliva samples, at 1.03 (SD 18.8), p<0.001 between all measurements. Saliva specimens were associated with the lowest cost, and the incremental costs per detected SARS-CoV-2 infection for NPSs and OPSs were US$3258 and US$1832, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: OPSs were associated with higher SARS-CoV-2 detection and lower test-related discomfort than NPSs for SARS-CoV-2 testing. Saliva sampling had the lowest SARS-CoV-2 detection but was the least costly strategy for mass testing. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04715607.

Curriculum and assessment tool for less invasive surfactant administration: an international Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Training and assessment of operator competence for the less invasive surfactant administration (LISA) procedure vary. This study aimed to obtain international expert consensus on LISA training (LISA curriculum (LISA-CUR)) and assessment (LISA assessment tool (LISA-AT)). METHODS: From February to July 2022, an international three-round Delphi process gathered opinions from LISA experts (researchers, curriculum developers, and clinical educators) on a list of items to be included in a LISA-CUR and LISA-AT (Round 1). The experts rated the importance of each item (Round 2). Items supported by more than 80% consensus were included. All experts were asked to approve or reject the final LISA-CUR and LISA-AT (Round 3). RESULTS: A total of 153 experts from 14 countries participated in Round 1, and the response rate for Rounds 2 and 3 was >80%. Round 1 identified 44 items for LISA-CUR and 22 for LISA-AT. Round 2 excluded 15 items for the LISA-CUR and 7 items for the LISA-AT. Round 3 resulted in a strong consensus (99-100%) for the final 29 items for the LISA-CUR and 15 items for the LISA-AT. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi process established an international consensus on a training curriculum and content evidence for the assessment of LISA competence. IMPACT: This international consensus-based expert statement provides content on a curriculum for the less invasive surfactant administration procedure (LISA-CUR) that may be partnered with existing evidence-based strategies to optimize and standardize LISA training in the future. This international consensus-based expert statement also provides content on an assessment tool for the LISA procedure (LISA-AT) that can help to evaluate competence in LISA operators. The proposed LISA-AT enables standardized, continuous feedback and assessment until achieving proficiency.

Acquisition and usage of robotic surgical data for machine learning analysis.

BACKGROUND: The increasing use of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has led to the need for new methods of assessing whether new surgeons are qualified to perform RAS, without the resource-demanding process of having expert surgeons do the assessment. Computer-based automation and artificial intelligence (AI) are seen as promising alternatives to expert-based surgical assessment. However, no standard protocols or methods for preparing data and implementing AI are available for clinicians. This may be among the reasons for the impediment to the use of AI in the clinical setting. METHOD: We tested our method on porcine models with both the da Vinci Si and the da Vinci Xi. We sought to capture raw video data from the surgical robots and 3D movement data from the surgeons and prepared the data for the use in AI by a structured guide to acquire and prepare video data using the following steps: 'Capturing image data from the surgical robot', 'Extracting event data', 'Capturing movement data of the surgeon', 'Annotation of image data'. RESULTS: 15 participant (11 novices and 4 experienced) performed 10 different intraabdominal RAS procedures. Using this method we captured 188 videos (94 from the surgical robot, and 94 corresponding movement videos of the surgeons' arms and hands). Event data, movement data, and labels were extracted from the raw material and prepared for use in AI. CONCLUSION: With our described methods, we could collect, prepare, and annotate images, events, and motion data from surgical robotic systems in preparation for its use in AI.

Artificial scholarship: LLMs in health professions education research.

This editorial examines the implications of artificial intelligence (AI), specifically large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, on the authorship and authority of academic papers, and the potential ethical concerns and challenges in health professions education (HPE).

The fundamentals of Artificial Intelligence in medical education research: AMEE Guide No. 156.

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in medical education has the potential to facilitate complicated tasks and improve efficiency. For example, AI could help automate assessment of written responses, or provide feedback on medical image interpretations with excellent reliability. While applications of AI in learning, instruction, and assessment are growing, further exploration is still required. There exist few conceptual or methodological guides for medical educators wishing to evaluate or engage in AI research. In this guide, we aim to: 1) describe practical considerations involved in reading and conducting studies in medical education using AI, 2) define basic terminology and 3) identify which medical education problems and data are ideally-suited for using AI.

Cost of simulation-based mastery learning for abdominal ultrasound.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound is an essential diagnostic examination used in several medical specialties. However, the quality of ultrasound examinations is dependent on mastery of certain skills, which may be difficult and costly to attain in the clinical setting. This study aimed to explore mastery learning for trainees practicing general abdominal ultrasound using a virtual reality simulator and to evaluate the associated cost per student achieving the mastery learning level. METHODS: Trainees were instructed to train on a virtual reality ultrasound simulator until the attainment of a mastery learning level was established in a previous study. Automated simulator scores were used to track performances during each round of training, and these scores were recorded to determine learning curves. Finally, the costs of the training were evaluated using a micro-costing procedure. RESULTS: Twenty-one out of the 24 trainees managed to attain the predefined mastery level two times consecutively. The trainees completed their training with a median of 2h38min (range: 1h20min-4h30min) using a median of 7 attempts (range: 3-11 attempts) at the simulator test. The cost of training one trainee to the mastery level was estimated to be USD 638. CONCLUSION: Complete trainees can obtain mastery learning levels in general abdominal ultrasound examinations within 3 hours of training in the simulated setting and at an average cost of USD 638 per trainee. Future studies are needed to explore how the cost of simulation-based training is best balanced against the costs of clinical training.

Standard Setting in Simulation-based Training of Surgical Procedures: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to examine the use of standard-setting methods in the context of simulation-based training of surgical procedures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND: Simulation-based training is increasingly used in surgical education. However, it is important to determine which level of competency trainees must reach during simulation-based training before operating on patients. Therefore, pass/fail standards must be established using systematic, transparent, and valid methods. METHODS: Systematic literature search was done in 4 databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library). Original studies investigating simulation-based assessment of surgical procedures with the application of a standard setting were included. Quality of evidence was appraised using GRADE. RESULTS: Of 24,299 studies identified by searches, 232 studies met the inclusion criteria. Publications using already established standard settings were excluded (N = 70), resulting in 162 original studies included in the final analyses. Most studies described how the standard setting was determined (N = 147, 91%) and most used the mean or median performance score of experienced surgeons (n = 65, 40%) for standard setting. We found considerable differences across most of the studies regarding study design, setup, and expert level classification. The studies were appraised as having low and moderate evidence. CONCLUSION: Surgical education is shifting toward competency-based education, and simulation-based training is increasingly used for acquiring skills and assessment. Most studies consider and describe how standard settings are established using more or less structured methods but for current and future educational programs, a critical approach is needed so that the learners receive a fair, valid, and reliable assessment.

Business as (un)usual: A qualitative study of clerkship experiences during a health crisis.

INTRODUCTION: During a health crisis, hospitals must prioritise activities and resources, which can compromise clerkship-based learning. We explored how health crises affect clinical clerkships using the COVID-19 pandemic as an example. METHODS: In a constructivist qualitative study, we conducted 22 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (i.e. medical students and doctors) from two teaching hospitals and 10 different departments. We used thematic analysis to investigate our data and used stakeholder theory as a sensitising concept. RESULTS: We identified three themes: (1) emotional triggers and reactions; (2) negotiation of legitimacy; and (3) building resilience. Our results suggest that the health crisis accentuated already existing problems in clerkships, such as students' feelings of low legitimacy, constant negotiation of roles, inconsistencies navigating rules and regulations and low levels of active participation. Medical students and doctors adapted to the new organisational demands by developing increased resilience. Students responded by reaching out for guidance and acceptance to remain relevant in the clinical clerkships. Doctors developed a behaviour of closing in and focused on managing themselves and their patients. This created tension between these two stakeholder groups. CONCLUSION: A health crisis can critically disrupt the hierarchical structure within the clinical clerkships and exacerbate existing conflicts between stakeholder groups. When medical students are not perceived as legitimate stakeholders in clinical clerkships during a health crisis, their attendance is perceived as unnecessary or even a nuisance. Despite increased student proactiveness and resilience, their roles inevitably shift from being doctors-to-be to students-to-be-managed.

Does group size matter during collaborative skills learning? A randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative skills learning in the form of dyad learning compared with individual learning has been shown to lead to non-inferior skills retention and transfer. However, we have limited knowledge on which learning activities improve collaborative skills training and how the number of collaborators may impact skills transfer. We explored the effects of skills training individually, in dyads, triads or tetrads on learning activities during training and on subsequent skills transfer. METHODS: In a randomised, controlled study, participants completed a pre-post-transfer-test set-up in groups of one to four. Participants completed 2 hours of obstetric ultrasound training. In the dyad, triad and tetrad group participants took turns actively handling the ultrasound probe. All performances were rated by two blinded experts using the Objective Structured Assessment of Ultrasound Skills (OSAUS) scale and a Global Rating Scale (GRS). All training was video recorded, and learning activities were analysed using the Interactive-Constructive-Active-Passive (ICAP) framework. RESULTS: One hundred one participants completed the simulation-based training, and ninety-seven completed the transfer test. Performance scores improved significantly from pre- to post-test for all groups (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.55). However, group size did not affect transfer test performance on OSAUS scores (p = 0.13, ηp2 = 0.06) or GRS scores (p = 0.23, ηp2 = 0.05). ICAP analyses of training activities showed that time spent on non-learning and passive learning activities increased with group size (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.31), whereas time spent on constructive and interactive learning activities was constant between groups compared with singles (p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.72). CONCLUSION: Collaborative skills learning in groups of up to four did not impair skills transfer despite less hands-on time. This may be explained by a compensatory shift towards constructive and interactive learning activities that outweigh the effect of shorter hands-on time.

The concept of errors in medical education: a scoping review.

The purpose of this scoping review was to explore how errors are conceptualized in medical education contexts by examining different error perspectives and practices. This review used a scoping methodology with a systematic search strategy to identify relevant studies, written in English, and published before January 2021. Four medical education journals (Medical Education, Advances in Health Science Education, Medical Teacher, and Academic Medicine) and four clinical journals (Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of General Internal Medicine, Annals of Surgery, and British Medical Journal) were purposively selected. Data extraction was charted according to a data collection form. Of 1505 screened studies, 79 studies were included. Three overarching perspectives were identified: 'understanding errors') (n = 31), 'avoiding errors' (n = 25), 'learning from errors' (n = 23). Studies that aimed at'understanding errors' used qualitative methods (19/31, 61.3%) and took place in the clinical setting (19/31, 61.3%), whereas studies that aimed at 'avoiding errors' and 'learning from errors' used quantitative methods ('avoiding errors': 20/25, 80%, and 'learning from errors': 16/23, 69.6%, p = 0.007) and took place in pre-clinical (14/25, 56%) and simulated settings (10/23, 43.5%), respectively (p < 0.001). The three perspectives differed significantly in terms of inclusion of educational theory: 'Understanding errors' studies 16.1% (5/31),'avoiding errors' studies 48% (12/25), and 'learning from errors' studies 73.9% (17/23), p < 0.001. Errors in medical education and clinical practice are defined differently, which makes comparisons difficult. A uniform understanding is not necessarily a goal but improving transparency and clarity of how errors are currently conceptualized may improve our understanding of when, why, and how to use and learn from errors in the future.

Why we succeed and fail in detecting fetal growth restriction: A population-based study.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to explore the association between detection of fetal growth restriction and maternal-, healthcare provider- and organizational factors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A historical, observational, multicentre study. All women who gave birth to a child with a birthweight <2.3rd centile from 1 September 2012 to 31 August 2015 in Zealand, Denmark, were included. The population was identified through the Danish Fetal Medicine Database. Medical charts were reviewed to obtain data regarding maternal characteristics and information on the healthcare professionals. Date of authorization for the midwives and obstetricians involved was extracted from the Danish Health Authorization Registry. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to identify predictors of antenatal detection of fetal growth restriction, and analyses were adjusted for hospital, body mass index, parity, the presence of at least one risk factor and experience of the first midwife, number of midwife visits, number of visits to a doctor, the experience of the consultant midwife or the educational level of the doctor, the number of scans and gaps in continuity of midwife-care. Antenatal detection was defined as an ultrasound estimated fetal weight <2.3rd centile (corresponding to -2 standard deviations) prior to delivery. RESULTS: Among 78 544 pregnancies, 3069 (3.9%) had a fetal growth restriction. Detection occurred in 31% of fetal growth-restricted pregnancies. Clinical experience (defined as years since graduation) of the first consultation midwife was positively associated with detection, with a hazard ratio [HR] of 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.28), for every 10 years of additional experience. The hazard of detection increased with the number of midwife consultations (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.26) and with multiparity (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.03-1.58). After adjusting for all covariates, an unexplained difference between hospitals (P = .01) remained. CONCLUSIONS: The low-risk nullipara may constitute an overlooked group of women at increased risk of antenatal non-detection of fetal growth restriction. Being screened by experienced midwives during early pregnancy and having access to multiple midwife consultations may improve future diagnosis.

Is two a crowd? A qualitative analysis of dyad learning in an OBGYN clinical clerkship.

INTRODUCTION: Dyad learning occurs when two students work together to acquire new skills and knowledge. Several studies have provided evidence to support the educational rationale for dyad learning in the controlled simulated setting. However, the role of dyad learning in the clinical setting remains uncertain. Unlike the simulated setting, learning in the clinical setting depends on a complex interplay between medical students, doctors, nurses and patients potentially making dyad learning less valuable in clerkships. The objective of this study was to explore how key stakeholders perceive the value of implementing dyad learning during medical students' clinical clerkships. METHODS: In a constructivist qualitative study, we conducted 51 semi-structured interviews with 36 key stakeholders involved in dyad learning, including 10 medical students, 12 doctors, five nurses and nine patients. Data were coded inductively using thematic analysis, then coded deductively using stakeholder theory as a theoretical framework. RESULTS: We found that stakeholders generally perceived the educational impact of dyad learning in the clinical setting similarly but disagreed on its value. Students emphasised that dyad learning made them participate more actively during patient encounters and patients did not mind having two students present. Doctors and nurses considered dyad learning disruptive to the balance between service and training and reported that it did not resonate with their perception of good patient care. CONCLUSION: Dyad learning enables students to be more active during their clinical clerkships, but it easily disrupts the balance between service and training. This disruption may be exacerbated by the shifted balance in priorities and values between different stakeholder groups, as well as by making implicit teaching obligations more explicit for supervising doctors and nurses. Consequently, implementing dyad learning may not be perceived as valuable by doctors and nurses in the clinical setting, regardless of its pedagogical rationale.

The myth of ivory tower versus practice-oriented research: A systematic review of randomised studies in medical education.

CONTEXT: A long-standing myth in medical education research is a divide between two different poles: research aiming to advance theory with little focus on practical applications ('ivory tower' research) and practically oriented research aiming to serve educators and decision-makers with little focus on advancing theory ('in-the-trenches' practice). We explored this myth in a sample of randomised medical education studies using Stokes' four-quadrant framework for the classification of research perspective. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and Scopus for studies in medical education using a randomised design that were published between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018. We used Stokes' four-quadrant framework to categorise the studies according to their use of theory, concepts and their justification for practical use. We compared medical education research published in medical education journals and clinical journals. RESULTS: A total of 150 randomised studies were included in the analysis. The largest segment of studies (46.7%) was categorised as use-inspired basic research (Pasteur's Quadrant), closely followed by pure applied research (40.7%, Edison's Quadrant). Only a few studies were categorised as aiming to advance knowledge with no thought for practical educational application (2.0%, Bohr's Quadrant). The proportion of studies that included educational concepts and theory differed according to publication in clinical journals or medical education journals: 40.5% vs 71.8%, respectively, P < .001. There were no differences between journals with regard to the proportion of studies that included a practical educational or clinical rationale (P = .99). CONCLUSION: In a large sample of studies using randomised designs, we found no evidence to support the myth that medical education research divides between two singular poles represented by 'ivory tower research' and 'in-the-trenches practice'. We did confirm prevailing assumptions regarding an emphasis on non-theoretical medical education research in clinical journals.