Development and validity evidence for the intraprofessional conflict exercise: An assessment tool to support collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Effective collaboration is the foundation for delivering safe, high quality patient care. Health sciences curricula often include interprofessional collaboration training but may neglect conflicts that occur within a profession (intraprofessional). We describe the development of and validity evidence for an assessment of intraprofessional conflict management. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We designed a 22-item assessment, the Intraprofessional Conflict Exercise, to evaluate skills in managing intraprofessional conflicts based on a literature review of conflict management. Using Messick's validity framework, we collected evidence for content, response process, and internal structure during a simulated intraprofessional conflict from 2018 to 2019. We performed descriptive statistics, inter-rater reliability, Cronbach's alpha, generalizability theory, and factor analysis to gather validity evidence. Two trained faculty examiners rated 82 trainees resulting in 164 observations. Inter-rater reliability was fair, weighted kappa of 0.33 (SE = 0.03). Cronbach's alpha was 0.87. The generalizability study showed differentiation among trainees (19.7% person variance) and was highly reliable, G-coefficient 0.88, Phi-coefficient 0.88. The decision study predicted that using one rater would have high reliability, G-coefficient 0.80. Exploratory factor analysis demonstrated three factors: communication skills, recognition of limits, and demonstration of respect for others. Based on qualitative observations, we found all items to be applicable, highly relevant, and helpful in identifying how trainees managed intraprofessional conflict. CONCLUSIONS: The Intraprofessional Conflict Exercise provides a useful and reliable way to evaluate intraprofessional conflict management skills. It provides meaningful and actionable feedback to trainees and may help health educators in preparing trainees to manage intraprofessional conflict.

A Meaningful and Actionable Professionalism Assessment: Validity Evidence for the Professionalism Mini-Evaluation Exercise (P-MEX) Across 8 Years.

PURPOSE: With the growing importance of professionalism in medical education, it is imperative to develop professionalism assessments that demonstrate robust validity evidence. The Professionalism Mini-Evaluation Exercise (P-MEX) is an assessment that has demonstrated validity evidence in the authentic clinical setting. Identifying the factorial structure of professionalism assessments determines professionalism constructs that can be used to provide diagnostic and actionable feedback. This study examines validity evidence for the P-MEX, a focused and standardized assessment of professionalism, in a simulated patient setting. METHOD: The P-MEX was administered to 275 pediatric residency applicants as part of a 3-station standardized patient encounter, pooling data over an 8-year period (2012 to 2019 residency admission years). Reliability and construct validity for the P-MEX were evaluated using Cronbach's alpha, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha for the P-MEX was 0.91. The EFA yielded 4 factors: doctor-patient relationship skills, interprofessional skills, professional demeanor, and reflective skills. The CFA demonstrated good model fit with a root-mean-square error of approximation of .058 and a comparative fit index of .92, confirming the reproducibility of the 4-factor structure of professionalism. CONCLUSIONS: The P-MEX demonstrates construct validity as an assessment of professionalism, with 4 underlying subdomains in doctor-patient relationship skills, interprofessional skills, professional demeanor, and reflective skills. These results yield new confidence in providing diagnostic and actionable subscores within the P-MEX assessment. Educators may wish to integrate the P-MEX assessment into their professionalism curricula.

When Team Conflicts Threaten Quality of Care: A Study of Health Care Professionals' Experiences and Perceptions.

OBJECTIVES: To explore professionals' experiences and perceptions of whether, how, and what types of conflicts affected the quality of patient care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted 82 semistructured interviews with randomly selected health care professionals in a Swiss teaching hospital (October 2014 and March 2016). Participants related stories of team conflicts (intra-/interprofessional, among protagonists at the same or different hierarchical levels) and the perceived consequences for patient care. We analyzed quality of care using the dimensions of care proposed by the Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America (safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity). RESULTS: Seventy-seven of 130 conflicts had no perceived consequences for patient care. Of the 53 conflicts (41%) with potential perceived consequences, the most common were care not provided in a timely manner to patients (delays, longer hospitalization), care not being patient-centered, and less efficient care. Intraprofessional conflicts were linked with less patient-centered care, whereas interprofessional conflicts were linked with less timely care. Conflicts among protagonists at the same hierarchical level were linked with less timely care and less patient-centered care. In some situations, perceived unsatisfactory quality of care generated team conflicts. CONCLUSION: Based on participants' assessments, 4 of 10 conflict stories had potential consequences for the quality of patient care. The most common consequences were failure to provide timely, patient-centered, and efficient care. Management of hospitals should consider team conflicts as a potential threat to quality of care and support conflict management programs.

Acquisition of clinical competence: Added value of clerkship real-life contextual experience.

BACKGROUND: Medical students' limited access to patients induces a shift of learning activities from clinical wards to classrooms. AIM: Identify clinical competencies specifically acquired during real-life contextual clerkship added to case-based tutorials, by a prospective, controlled study. METHODS: Students entering our eight-week internal medicine (IM) clerkship attended paper case-based tutorials about 10 common presenting complaints and were assigned to an IM specialty ward. For each tutorial case, two groups of students were created: those assigned to a ward, the specialty of which was unrelated to the case (case-unrelated ward, CUW) and those assigned to a ward, the specialty of which was related to the case (case-related ward, CRW). RESULTS: Forty-one students (30 CUW and 11 CRW) volunteered for the study. Both groups had similar previous experiences and pre-clerkship exam scores. The CRW students collected more relevant clinical information from the patient (69% vs. 55% of expected items, p=0.001) and elaborated charts of better quality (47% vs. 39% of expected items, p=0.05). Clinical-knowledge mean score was similar (70%) in both groups (p=0.92). CONCLUSIONS: While paper-case tutorials did provide students with clinical knowledge, real contextual experience brought additional, specific competencies. This supports the preservation of clinical exposure with supervision and feedback.

Development of clinical reasoning from the basic sciences to the clerkships: a longitudinal assessment of medical students' needs and self-perception after a transitional learning unit.

BACKGROUND: To facilitate students' transition from basic, science-oriented, problem-based learning (PBL) to clinical reasoning-oriented PBL, the University of Geneva School of Medicine introduced a 12-week unit of Introduction to Clinical Reasoning (ICR) at the beginning of its fourth or clerkship year. PURPOSE: The aims of the present study were to determine, after 12 weeks in the ICR unit, to what extent students had: (1) identified the learning content set by the faculty while adapting to the hypothetico-deductive reasoning approach; (2) familiarised themselves with the clinical reasoning-oriented learning process, and (3) transferred and further developed this process during the clinical years. METHOD: Students' derived objectives from the problems were compared to the objectives preset by the faculty to determine acquisition of intended learning content. To assess their adaptation to the clinical reasoning-oriented PBL approach, students (n = 124) were asked to list and freely comment on aspects of the unit they felt most at ease with or had difficulty with, and to complete a questionnaire on the clinical reasoning process (CRP). The same questionnaire was administered 6 and 12 months later to assess the evolution of the students' self-perception during clerkships. RESULTS: On average, student objectives matched 62% of faculty objectives. Half of the missed (38%) objectives were in basic sciences. Students generated 16% additional objectives, also predominantly in the basic sciences category (41%). Free comments indicated that the difficulties perceived by students were very similar to those previously reported in studies on reasoning and errors, such as difficulty in gathering, interpreting and weighting relevant data, synthesising information, and organising it hierarchically. These results were confirmed with the CRP questionnaire administered at the end of the unit. For most of the competencies assessed on the CRP questionnaire, a gradual improvement was seen to have occurred by 6 and 12 months after the unit. CONCLUSIONS: To ease students' transition from the preclinical to clinical years, a learning unit should give them the opportunity to train their clinical reasoning processes on standardised and prototypical problems, before encountering real patients with more ill-structured problems during clerkships. Such a transitional structure should particularly emphasise a developed repertoire of problem representations, recognition of key findings and a hierarchical classification of working hypotheses. It should foster the creation of links between the acquired basic clinical knowledge and the diagnostic, management and therapy steps of problem solving.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of diagnostic strategies for suspected pulmonary embolism including helical computed tomography.

We performed a formal decision analysis to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various strategies for pulmonary embolism, including helical computed tomography (CT), and determined the most cost-effective schemes for each clinical probability of pulmonary embolism. Other tests included D-dimer (DD), lower limb venous ultrasound (US), ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan, and angiography. Outcome measures were 3-month survival and costs per patient managed. Baseline sensitivity of CT was 70%, corresponding to the performance of single-detector CT, and that figure was raised in sensitivity analysis to account for the expected higher sensitivity of newer multidetector CT scanners. All strategies were compared with a reference strategy, namely the V/Q scan in all patients followed when nondiagnostic by an angiogram. For low clinical probability patients, the most cost-effective strategy was DD, US, and V/Q scan, patients with a nondiagnostic V/Q scan being left untreated. Replacing V/Q scan by CT was also cost-effective. For intermediate and high clinical probability patients, a fourth test must be added, either CT or angiography in patients with nondiagnostic V/Q scan, or angiography in patients with a negative helical CT. When using sensitivity figures above 85% (in the multidetector range), DD, US, and CT became the most cost-effective strategy for all clinical probability categories. Helical CT as a single test was not cost-effective. In summary, including helical CT in diagnostic strategies for pulmonary embolism is cost-effective provided that it is combined with DD and US. In contrast, helical CT as a single test is not cost-effective.