Development of the entrustable professional activity 'medication reconciliation' for clinical pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) are observable process descriptions of clinical work units. EPAs support learners and tutors in assessment within healthcare settings. For use amongst our pharmacy students as well as pre-registration pharmacists we wanted to develop and validate an EPA for use in a clinical pharmacy setting at LMU University Hospital. METHODS: The development of the clinical pharmacy EPA followed a set pathway. A rapid literature review informed the first draft, an interprofessional consensus group consisting of pharmacists, nurses, and medical doctors refined this draft. The refined version was then validated via online survey utilising clinical pharmacists from Germany. RESULTS: We designed, refined and validated an EPA regarding medication reconciliation for assessment of pharmacy students and trainees within the pharmacy department at LMU University Hospital in Munich. Along with the EPA description an associated checklist to support the entrustment decision was created. For validation an online survey with 27 clinical pharmacists from all over Germany was conducted. Quality testing with the EQual rubric showed a good EPA quality. CONCLUSIONS: We developed the first clinical pharmacy EPA for use in a German context. Medication reconciliation is a suitable EPA candidate as it describes a clinical activity performed by pharmacists in many clinical settings. The newly developed and validated EPA 'Medication Reconciliation' will be used to assess pharmacy students and trainees.

FINCA - a conceptual framework to improve interprofessional collaboration in health education and care.

The health care system in Germany and in many other countries is facing fundamental challenges due to demographic change, which require new integrated care concepts and a revision of the collaboration between health care professions in everyday clinical practice. Internationally, several competency framework models have been proposed, but a framework that explicitly conceptualizes collaborative activities to improve interprofessional problem-solving competency in health care is still missing. Such a framework should define contextual, person-related, process-related, and outcome-related variables relevant to interprofessional problem solving in health care. Against this background, we present a conceptual framework to improve interprofessional collaboration in health education and care (FINCA) developed with scientific consideration of empirical data and various theoretical references. FINCA reflects an interprofessional learning and interaction process involving two persons from different health care professions and with different individual learning prerequisites. These two initially identify a problem that is likely to require interprofessional collaboration at some point. FINCA acknowledges the context of interprofessional learning, teaching, and working as well as its action-modifying context factors. We follow the reasoning that individual learning prerequisites interact with the teaching context during learning activities. At the heart of FINCA are observable collaborative activities (information sharing and grounding; negotiating; regulating; executing interprofessional activities; maintaining communication) that can be used to assess individuals' cognitive and social skills. Eventually, the framework envisages an assessment of the outcomes of interprofessional education and collaboration. The proposed conceptual framework provides the basis for analysis and empirical testing of the components and variables it describes and their interactions across studies, educational interventions, and action-modifying contexts. FINCA further provides the basis for fostering the teaching and learning of interprofessional problem-solving skills in various health care settings. It can support faculty and curriculum developers to systematize the implementation and improvement of interprofessional teaching and learning opportunities. From a practical perspective, FINCA can help to better align curricula for different health professions in the future. In principle, we also see potential for transferability of the framework to other areas where different professions collaborate.

Statistical literacy and scientific reasoning & argumentation in physicians.

Objective: Statistical literacy (SL) of physicians, i.e. the ability to use and interpret statistical numbers in the context of science, is an essential prerequisite for risk estimation and communication. Together with scientific reasoning and argumentation (SRA) skills, SL provides the basis for evidence-based practice. Several studies suggest that in medical students both skills are underdeveloped. The aim of the present study was to investigate these skills in practicing physicians and how these skills were acquired. Methods: Data collection in N=71 physicians was conducted online and as paper pencil. SL was assessed with multiple-choice items. SRA skills evidence evaluation and drawing conclusions were measured with a decision scenario. Results: Study results indicated that physicians have medium levels of SL (M=17.58, SD=6.92, max 30 pts.) and SRA (evidence evaluation: M=7.75, SD=1.85, max 10 pts.; drawing conclusions: M=37.20, SD=5.35, max 60 pts.). Skills development via autodidactic learning activities (M=4.78, SD=1.13, range 1-6) was reported significantly more often than development during formal medical education (M=2.31, SD=1.46), t(71)=-9.915, p<.001, or in extracurricular activities (M=3.34, SD=1.87), t(71)=4.673, p<.001. The active involvement in research seemed decisive: The number of publications and time spent in research significantly correlated with SL, r(71)=.355, p=.002; respectively r(71)=.280, p=.018. SRA skills were predicted by the type of MD-thesis, ß=-.380, p=.016, and working in research, ß=3.355, p=.008. Conclusion: Active involvement in research activities seems to be a very important factor for the development of both SL and SRA skills. The implementation of systematic fostering of these skills during formal medical education seems warranted.

Isn't here just there without a "t" - to what extent can digital Clinical Case Discussions compensate for the absence of face-to-face teaching?

Objective: COVID-19 challenges curriculum managers worldwide to create digital substitutes for classroom teaching. Case-based teaching formats under expert supervision can be used as a substitute for practical bedside teaching, where the focus is on teaching clinical reasoning skills. Methods: For medical students of LMU and TU Munich, the interactive, case-based, and supervised teaching format of Clinical Case Discussion (CCD) was digitised and implemented as dCCD in their respective curricula. Case discussions were realised as videoconferences, led by a student moderator, and took place under the supervision of a board-certified clinician. To prevent passive participation, additional cognitive activations were implemented. Acceptance, usability, and subjective learning outcomes were assessed in dCCDs by means of a special evaluation concept. Results: With regard to acceptance, students were of the opinion that they had learned effectively by participating in dCCDs (M=4.31; SD=1.37). The majority of students also stated that they would recommend the course to others (M=4.23; SD=1.62). The technical implementation of the teaching format was judged positively overall, but findings for usability were heterogeneous. Students rated their clinical reasoning skills at the end of the dCCDs (M=4.43; SD=0.66) as being significantly higher than at the beginning (M=4.33; SD=0.69), with low effect size, t(181)=-2.352, p=.020, d=0.15. Conclusion: Our evaluation data shows that the dCCD format is well-accepted by students as a substitute for face-to-face teaching. In the next step, we plan to examine the extent to which participation in dCCDs leads to an increase in objectively measured clinical reasoning skills, analogous to a face-to-face CCD with on-site attendance.

Diagnostic Activities and Diagnostic Practices in Medical Education and Teacher Education: An Interdisciplinary Comparison.

In this article, we investigate diagnostic activities and diagnostic practices in medical education and teacher education. Previous studies have tended to focus on comparing knowledge between disciplines, but such an approach is complicated due to the content specificity of knowledge. We compared 142 learners from medical education and 122 learners from teacher education who were asked to (a) diagnose eight simulated cases from their respective discipline in a simulation-based learning environment and (b) write a justificatory report for each simulated case. We coded all justificatory reports regarding four diagnostic activities: generating hypotheses, generating evidence, evaluating evidence, and drawing conclusions. Moreover, using the method of Epistemic Network Analysis, we operationalized diagnostic practices as the relative frequencies of co-occurring diagnostic activities. We found significant differences between learners from medical education and teacher education with respect to both their diagnostic activities and diagnostic practices. Learners from medical education put relatively more emphasis on generating hypotheses and drawing conclusions, therefore applying a more hypothesis-driven approach. By contrast, learners in teacher education had a stronger focus on generating and evaluating evidence, indicating a more data-driven approach. The results may be explained by different epistemic ideals and standards taught in higher education. Further research on the issue of epistemic ideals and standards in diagnosing is needed. Moreover, we recommend that educators think beyond individuals' knowledge and implement measures to systematically teach and increase the awareness of disciplinary standards.

Clinical Case Discussions - a novel, supervised peer-teaching format to promote clinical reasoning in medical students.

Background: Clinical reasoning (CR) is a clinical core competence for medical students to acquire. While the necessity for CR teaching has been recognized since the early 20th century, to this day no consensus on how to best educate students in CR exists. Hence, few universities have incorporated dedicated CR teaching formats into their medical curriculum. We propose a novel case-based, peer-taught and physician-supervised collaborative learning format, dubbed "Clinical Case Discussions" (CCDs) to foster CR in medical students. Project description: We present the curricular concept of CCDs and its development according to a six-step approach (problem identification and general needs assessment; targeted needs assessment; goals and objectives; educational strategies; implementation; evaluation and feedback). Our goal is to strengthen the physician roles (CanMEDS/NKLM) and CR competence of medical students. CCDs are offered at our institution as an elective course and students work on real-life, complex medical cases through a structured approach. Over the course of five years we evaluated various aspects of the course and trained student teachers to optimize our course concept according to the feedback of our participants. We also obtained intro and exit self-assessments of CR competence using an established CR questionnaire. Results: We found an unmet need for CR teaching, as medical students in their clinical years view CR as highly important for later practice, but only 50% have ever heard of CR within the curriculum. Acceptance of CCDs was consistently high with over 85% of participants strongly agreeing that they would re-participate in the course and recommend it to a friend. Additionally, we observed significant improvements in CR self-assessments of participants. Conclusion: CCDs are a feasible teaching format to improve students' CR competence, have a high acceptance and involve students in medical education through peer-teaching.

Learning clinical reasoning: how virtual patient case format and prior knowledge interact.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical reasoning has been fostered with varying case formats including the use of virtual patients. Existing literature points to different conclusions regarding which format is most beneficial for learners with diverse levels of prior knowledge. We designed our study to better understand which case format affects clinical reasoning outcomes and cognitive load, dependent on medical students' prior knowledge. METHODS: Overall, 142 medical students (3 rd to 6 th year) were randomly assigned to either a whole case or serial cue case format. Participants worked on eight virtual patients in their respective case format. Outcomes included diagnostic accuracy, knowledge, and cognitive load. RESULTS: We found no effect of case format on strategic knowledge scores pre- vs post-test (whole case learning gain = 3, 95% CI. -.01 to .01, serial cue learning gain = 3, 95% CI. -.06 to .00 p = .50). In both case formats, students with high baseline knowledge (determined by median split on the pre-test in conceptual knowledge) benefitted from learning with virtual patients (learning gain in strategic knowledge = 5, 95% CI .03 to .09, p = .01) while students with low prior knowledge did not (learning gain = 0, 95%CI -.02 to .02). We found no difference in diagnostic accuracy between experimental conditions (difference = .44, 95% CI -.96 to .08, p = .22), but diagnostic accuracy was higher for students with high prior knowledge compared to those with low prior knowledge (difference = .8, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.35, p < .01). Students with low prior knowledge experienced higher extraneous cognitive load than students with high prior knowledge (multiple measurements, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The whole case and serial cue case formats alone did not affect students' knowledge gain or diagnostic accuracy. Students with lower knowledge experienced increased cognitive load and appear to have learned less from their interaction with virtual patients. Cognitive load should be taken into account when attempting to help students learn clinical reasoning with virtual patients, especially for students with lower knowledge.

Can clinical case discussions foster clinical reasoning skills in undergraduate medical education? A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Fostering clinical reasoning is a mainstay of medical education. Based on the clinicopathological conferences, we propose a case-based peer teaching approach called clinical case discussions (CCDs) to promote the respective skills in medical students. This study compares the effectiveness of different CCD formats with varying degrees of social interaction in fostering clinical reasoning. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: A single-centre randomised controlled trial with a parallel design was conducted at a German university. Study participants (N=106) were stratified and tested regarding their clinical reasoning skills right after CCD participation and 2 weeks later. INTERVENTION: Participants worked within a live discussion group (Live-CCD), a group watching recordings of the live discussions (Video-CCD) or a group working with printed cases (Paper-Cases). The presentation of case information followed an admission-discussion-summary sequence. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical reasoning skills were measured with a knowledge application test addressing the students' conceptual, strategic and conditional knowledge. Additionally, subjective learning outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: With respect to learning outcomes, the Live-CCD group displayed the best results, followed by Video-CCD and Paper-Cases, F(2,87)=27.07, p<0.001, partial η2=0.384. No difference was found between Live-CCD and Video-CCD groups in the delayed post-test; however, both outperformed the Paper-Cases group, F(2,87)=30.91, p<0.001, partial η2=0.415. Regarding subjective learning outcomes, the Live-CCD received significantly better ratings than the other formats, F(2,85)=13.16, p<0.001, partial η2=0.236. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the CCD approach is an effective and sustainable clinical reasoning teaching resource for medical students. Subjective learning outcomes underline the importance of learner (inter)activity in the acquisition of clinical reasoning skills in the context of case-based learning. Higher efficacy of more interactive formats can be attributed to positive effects of collaborative learning. Future research should investigate how the Live-CCD format can further be improved and how video-based CCDs can be enhanced through instructional support.

Microlearning for patient safety: Crew resource management training in 15-minutes.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to establish the feasibility of chunking crew resource management (CRM) training into micro-size interventions and to compare different training approaches in the context of micro-learning. DESIGN: We evaluated whether participants in micro-learning CRM activities achieved learning objectives following training. In a between-subjects design, groups were observed for behaviour during a simulation that was part of a 15-minute modular intervention and tested for recollection afterwards. PARTICIPANTS: The 129 participants recruited for this study were medical students, who already had relevant experience treating patients. INTERVENTIONS: The experimental setting involved three 5-minute components: video, simulation, and debriefing. Different groups viewed videos involving different didactic concepts: one group observed a videotaped concrete example of a medical care team applying a CRM tool (example group), and one group observed a videotaped lecture on the same topic (lecture group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All simulations were videotaped and coded in detail for the occurrence of and time spent engaging in team behaviour and medical care. Questionnaires were administered before, immediately after, and two weeks after the intervention. We compared the groups' behaviour during the simulation (team cooperation and medical care), retention of knowledge from the training content, and results of the evaluation. RESULTS: Both groups exhibited most of the behaviours included in the content of the instructional videos during the simulations and recollected information 2 weeks later. The example group exhibited significantly more of the training content during the simulation and demonstrated better retention 2 weeks later. Although the example group spent more time on team coordination, there was no difference in the number of executed medical measures. CONCLUSION: Delivering CRM training in chunks of relatively short and highly standardised interventions appears feasible. In this study, the form of didactical presentation caused a difference in learning success between groups: a traditional lecture was outperformed by an instructional video demonstrating a practical example.

Crew resource management training in healthcare: a systematic review of intervention design, training conditions and evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Crew resource management (CRM) training formats have become a popular method to increase patient safety by consideration of the role that human factors play in healthcare delivery. The purposes of this review were to identify what is subsumed under the label of CRM in a healthcare context and to determine how such training is delivered and evaluated. DESIGN: Systematic review of published literature. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, PsycINFO and ERIC were searched through 8 October 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Individually constructed interventions for healthcare staff that were labelled as CRM training, or described as based on CRM principles or on aviation-derived human factors training. Only studies reporting both an intervention and results were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The studies were examined and coded for relevant passages. Characteristics regarding intervention design, training conditions and evaluation methods were analysed and summarised both qualitatively and quantitatively. RESULTS: Sixty-one interventions were included. 48% did not explain any keyword of their CRM intervention to a reproducible detail. Operating room teams and surgery, emergency medicine, intensive care unit staff and anaesthesiology came in contact most with a majority of the CRM interventions delivered in a 1-day or half-day format. Trainer qualification is reported seldomly. Evaluation methods and levels display strong variation. CONCLUSIONS: Critical topics were identified for the CRM training community and include the following: the need to agree on common terms and definitions for CRM in healthcare, standards of good practice for reporting CRM interventions and their effects, as well as the need for more research to establish non-educational criteria for success in the implementation of CRM in healthcare organisations.

Just watching is not enough: Fostering simulation-based learning with collaboration scripts.

Aims: In addition to medical facts, medical students participating in simulation-based training are supposed to acquire general knowledge, e.g. heuristics to cope with critical incidents. While active participation is considered a major benefit of this kind of training, a large portion of students' time is often spent observing peers acting in the simulator. Thus, we instructionally supported learners with a collaboration script (i.e., a set of scaffolds that distribute roles and activities among learners in group learning situations) during observational phases of a simulation-based training. Our script was designed to help learners focus on heuristics and to facilitate more (inter-)active participation. We hypothesised that scripted learners would benefit from the instructional support with respect to individual and collaborative learning processes as well as individual learning outcomes. Methods: Thirty-four medical students in their 7th to 12th semester participated in this field study with control group design. The independent variable was the collaboration script (with/without). Four voluntary emergency courses with a full-scale simulator were examined. The acquisition of skills related to Crisis Resource Management (CRM) heuristics was one of the learning goals of these courses. The collaboration script induced learners to perform specific activities during and after each observational phase of the training. Further, the script sequenced the order of activities and assigned roles to the learners. Learning processes were measured on an individual level (by means of notes taken by learners during observational phases) and on a collaborative level (by means of learners' comments). Learning outcomes were measured with pre- and post-self-assessment of CRM skills and a brief video-based CRM skills test at the end of the course. Results: The collaboration script had the expected positive effect on individual and collaborative learning processes, leading to an increased focus on heuristic strategies and increased collaborative activity of scripted learners. There was no evidence that the experimental conditions differed regarding the objective measure of individual learning outcomes. However, self-assessment data revealed that students in the control condition perceived a higher improvement of CRM skills throughout the course. We suggest that our script might have helped learners adjust an illusion of their own competency - such an illusion may have appeared in the control group as a result of processing fluency. Conclusions: Findings suggest that simulation-based training in medical education can be enhanced with additional instructional support in the form of collaboration scripts designed to turn observational course phases into more active and better focused learning experiences.

Representation scaffolds improve diagnostic efficiency in medical students.

CONTEXT: Diagnostic efficiency is important in daily clinical practice as doctors have to face problems within a limited time frame. To foster the clinical reasoning of students is a major challenge in medical education research. Little is known about students' diagnostic efficiency. On the basis of current theories, scaffolds for case representation (statement of the case as far as it is summarised in the mind) could be a promising approach to make the diagnostic reasoning of intermediate medical students more efficient. METHODS: Clinical case processing of 88 medical students in their fourth and fifth years was analysed in a randomised, controlled laboratory study. Cases dealing with dyspnoea were provided in an electronic learning environment (CASUS). Students could freely choose the time, amount and sequence of clinical information. During the learning phase the intervention group was asked to write down case representation summaries while working on the cases. In the assessment phase diagnostic efficiency was operationalised as the number of correct diagnoses divided by the time spent on diagnosing. RESULTS: Diagnostic efficiency was significantly improved by the representation scaffolding (M = 0.12 [SD = 0.07], M = 0.09 [SD = 0.06] correct cases/time, p = 0.045), whereas accuracy remained unchanged (M = 2.28 [SD = 1.10], M = 2.09 [SD = 1.08], p = 0.52). Both groups screened the same amount of clinical information, but the scaffolding group did this faster (M = 20.8 minutes [SD = 7.15], M = 24.6 minutes [SD = 7.42], p = 0.01; Cohen's d = 0.5). CONCLUSION: Diagnostic efficiency is an important outcome variable in clinical reasoning research as it corresponds to workplace challenges. Scaffolding for case representations significantly improved the diagnostic efficiency of fourth and fifth-year medical students, most likely because of a more targeted screening of the available information.

Improvements in teaching behavior at two German medical schools resulting from a modified Flanders interaction analysis feedback intervention process.

UNLABELLED: Abstract Background: Person-centered teachers who are more empathic and "indirect" (accept, encourage, praise and ask questions) tend to be more effective than those who are "direct" (lecture, give directions and criticize) (Amidon & Flanders 1991). The Flanders Interaction Analysis (FIA) is a tool for diagnosing these teaching aspects, though not yet used to improve lecturing in undergraduate medical education. AIMS: Does structured expert feedback to volunteer lecturers lead to improvement in person-centered teaching behavior as measured by a Modified Flanders Interaction Analysis (MFIA) and student questionnaires? METHODS: Twenty-one volunteer lecturers from two German medical faculties were stratified by past teaching experience and randomized into two groups. The intervention group received MFIA diagnoses of their lectures plus feedback by an expert observer after winter and summer semester lectures, respectively. The control group was only diagnosed with the MFIA. Teaching behavior changes for both groups were compared and teacher feedback about the intervention process was assessed. RESULTS: Faculty in the intervention group improved significantly in their summer lectures regarding person-centered teaching behavior while controls did not. CONCLUSIONS: A structured individual expert feedback intervention using a MFIA as a teaching diagnostic tool is a powerful, cost-effective faculty development process for improving teaching behavior of volunteer lecturers in undergraduate medical education.