Clinical Reasoning Assessment Methods: A Scoping Review and Practical Guidance.

PURPOSE: An evidence-based approach to assessment is critical for ensuring the development of clinical reasoning (CR) competence. The wide array of CR assessment methods creates challenges for selecting assessments fit for the purpose; thus, a synthesis of the current evidence is needed to guide practice. A scoping review was performed to explore the existing menu of CR assessments. METHOD: Multiple databases were searched from their inception to 2016 following PRISMA guidelines. Articles of all study design types were included if they studied a CR assessment method. The articles were sorted by assessment methods and reviewed by pairs of authors. Extracted data were used to construct descriptive appendixes, summarizing each method, including common stimuli, response formats, scoring, typical uses, validity considerations, feasibility issues, advantages, and disadvantages. RESULTS: A total of 377 articles were included in the final synthesis. The articles broadly fell into three categories: non-workplace-based assessments (e.g., multiple-choice questions, extended matching questions, key feature examinations, script concordance tests); assessments in simulated clinical environments (objective structured clinical examinations and technology-enhanced simulation); and workplace-based assessments (e.g., direct observations, global assessments, oral case presentations, written notes). Validity considerations, feasibility issues, advantages, and disadvantages differed by method. CONCLUSIONS: There are numerous assessment methods that align with different components of the complex construct of CR. Ensuring competency requires the development of programs of assessment that address all components of CR. Such programs are ideally constructed of complementary assessment methods to account for each method's validity and feasibility issues, advantages, and disadvantages.

Comparing Health Care Resource Use between Implant and Autologous Reconstruction of the Irradiated Breast: A National Claims-Based Assessment.

BACKGROUND: In the debate on reconstruction of the irradiated breast, there is little information on associated health care resource use. Nationwide data were used to examine health care resource use associated with implant and autologous reconstruction. It was hypothesized that failure rates would contribute the most to higher average cumulative cost with either reconstruction method. METHODS: From the 2009 to 2013 MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database, irradiated breast cancer patients who underwent implant or autologous reconstruction were selected. In a 24-month follow-up period, the cumulative costs of health care services used were tallied and described. Regression models stratified by reconstruction method were then used to estimate the influence of failure on cumulative cost of reconstruction. RESULTS: There were 2964 study patients. Most (78 percent) underwent implant reconstruction. The unadjusted mean costs for implant and autologous reconstructions were $22,868 and $30,527, respectively. Thirty-two percent of implant reconstructions failed, compared with 5 percent of autologous cases. Twelve percent of the implant reconstructions had two or more failures and required subsequent autologous reconstruction. The cost of implant reconstruction failure requiring a flap was $47,214, and the cost for autologous failures was $48,344. In aggregate, failures constituted more than 20 percent of the cumulative costs of implant reconstruction compared with less than 5 percent for autologous reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: More than one in 10 patients who had implant reconstruction in the setting of radiation therapy to the breast eventually required a flap for failure. These findings make a case for autologous reconstruction being primarily considered in irradiated patients who have this option available.