Anticipation Guides: A Tool to Highlight Knowledge and Promote Reflection on Learning.

Introduction: Anticipation guides (AGs) are an active learning tool with broad benefit for both learners and instructors. Though AGs have been more extensively studied in the primary and secondary education contexts, their development and implementation, as well as the benefits that they offer to medical education are not as well understood. The objective of this study was to explore the benefits that AGs afford to resident learners and instructors in the resident-led didactic conference setting. Methods: We performed a qualitative study of the use of anticipation guides in the resident-led didactic conference setting. Participants included 47 resident learners and three chief resident instructors. Data included learner response sheets, instructor reflective journals, and field notes from nonparticipant observation. Data analysis followed guidelines for content analysis. Results: Results indicate that AGs highlight changes in knowledge and thinking, prompt learners to reflect on their learning, and offer valuable insight into learner achievement and uncertainty to instructors. This input promotes formative assessment of learners and encourages instructors to improve their practice. Conclusions: Anticipation guides are an easy-to-implement active learning strategy with multiple benefits in the resident didactic conference setting. Their use helps learners recognize strengths and weaknesses and identify gaps in knowledge-behaviors consistent with the goals of residency as espoused by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Including AGs in instruction also benefits instructors in that they provide insight into learners' thinking and knowledge development and allow educators to assess the efficacy of their instruction.

Tools to Promote Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose CT Scanning: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Decisions about lung cancer screening are inherently complex and create a need for methods to convey the risks and benefits of screening to patients. RESEARCH QUESTION: What kind of decision aids or tools are available to support shared decision-making for lung cancer screening? What is the current evidence for the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of those tools? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies and searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to December 2019 for studies that evaluated the effectiveness and acceptability of tools to promote shared decision-making for patients who are considering lung cancer screening. RESULTS: After screening 2,427 records, we included one randomized control trial, two observational studies, 11 before/after studies of a decision aid or an educational tool. Fifteen distinct tools in various formats were evaluated in 14 studies. Most studies were of fair quality. Studies reported improvement in patients' knowledge of lung cancer screening (n = 9 studies), but improvements in specific areas of knowledge were inconsistent. Decisional conflict was low or reduced after the administration of the tools (n = 7 studies). The acceptability of tools was rated as "high" by patients (n = 7 studies) and physicians (n = 1 study). Low dose CT scan completion rates varied among studies (n = 6 studies). INTERPRETATION: Evidence from 14 studies suggests that some elements of existing tools for lung cancer screening may help to prepare patients for decision-making by improving knowledge and reducing decisional conflict. Such tools generally are acceptable to patients and providers. Further studies that use consistent measures and reporting methods and assess relevant decisional and clinical outcomes are needed to determine the comparative effectiveness and feasibility of implementation of these tools. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2018 CRD4201874814.

Abnormal Mini-Cog Is Associated with Higher Risk of Complications and Delirium in Geriatric Patients with Fracture.

BACKGROUND: The Mini-Cog test is a validated and simple tool to screen for dementia. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of cognitive impairment as measured by Mini-Cog testing as a predictor for in-hospital complications and mortality in geriatric patients with fracture. METHODS: From 2011 to 2014, patients who were seventy years of age or older, had a fracture, and were admitted to co-managed orthopaedic trauma and geriatrics services embedded at two Level-I trauma centers were enrolled in our study. As part of the patients' routine admission evaluation, the Mini-Cog examination was performed. An observational cohort study was completed documenting pre-injury functional status, in-hospital complications, length of stay, thirty-day readmission, and mortality. All patients in the study were followed for at least one year. RESULTS: Seven hundred and thirty-nine patients (median age, eighty-three years) attempted Mini-Cog testing. Of those, 513 were able to complete the test, demonstrating a 35.1% prevalence of cognitive impairment. The cohort's rate of in-hospital medical complications was 28.6%. Patients with an abnormal Mini-Cog test or those unable to complete the test had significantly higher odds of in-hospital complications (2.16 and 2.27, respectively) compared with patients with a normal Mini-Cog test (p < 0.001). Delirium was significantly increased in patients with an abnormal Mini-Cog test (odds ratio, 3.22; p = 0.001). The all-cause, one-year mortality rate after fracture in our population was 18.1%. Adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, and fracture type, only the patients unable to complete the Mini-Cog test showed a higher risk of mortality at one year (hazard ratio, 2.26; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The Mini-Cog examination is a quick, easily administered screening test for cognitive impairment that is useful in identifying high-risk geriatric patients with fracture. With this tool, we found more than one-third of our elderly patients with fracture were cognitively impaired at the time of admission. These patients had higher rates of in-hospital complications and a trend toward early mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.