Patient involvement in assessment of postgraduate medical learners: A scoping review.

CONTEXT: Competency-based assessment of learners may benefit from a more holistic, inclusive, approach for determining readiness for unsupervised practice. However, despite movements towards greater patient partnership in health care generally, inclusion of patients in postgraduate medical learners' assessment is largely absent. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to map the nature, extent and range of literature examining the inclusion (or exclusion) of patients within the assessment of postgraduate medical learners. Guided by Arskey and O'Malley's framework and informed by Levac et al. and Thomas et al., we searched two databases (MEDLINE® and Embase®) from inception until February 2021 using subheadings related to assessment, patients and postgraduate learners. Data analysis examined characteristics regarding the nature and factor influencing patient involvement in assessment. RESULTS: We identified 41 papers spanning four decades. Some literature suggests patients are willing to be engaged in assessment, however choose not to engage when, for example, language barriers may exist. When stratified by specialty or clinical setting, the influence of factors such as gender, race, ethnicity or medical condition seems to remain consistent. Patients may participate in assessment as a stand-alone group or part of a multi-source feedback process. Patients generally provided high ratings but commented on the observed professional behaviours and communication skills in comparison with physicians who focused on medical expertise. CONCLUSION: Factors that influence patient involvement in assessment are multifactorial including patients' willingness themselves, language and reading-comprehension challenges and available resources for training programmes to facilitate the integration of patient assessments. These barriers however are not insurmountable. While understudied, research examining patient involvement in assessment is increasing; however, our review suggests that the extent which the unique insights will be taken up in postgraduate medical education may be dependent on assessment systems readiness and, in particular, physician readiness to partner with patients in this way.

Fundamentals of Scholarly Peer Review: A Workshop for Health Professions Educators on Practicing Scholarly Citizenship.

Introduction: Education scholarship requires peer reviewers. For novice scholars, reviewing is an important developmental activity that cultivates deeper participation in the scholarship community. Yet getting started with reviewing is challenging for those not involved with the educational scholarship community. Beyond scientific expertise, reviewers must have a mentoring mindset, skills in providing constructive feedback, and knowledge of common ethical challenges associated with producing and evaluating scholarship. Methods: Our workshop introduced novice health professions educators to peer reviewing. It included four stimulus presentations about the peer reviewer's mindset and skills, followed by reinforcement activities. The workshop could be adapted to variously sized groups. An 8:1 ratio of participants to facilitators was ideal for activities. Topics covered included considerations before accepting an invitation, the review process, the good citizen approach to reviewing, and reviewer ethics. The session concluded with suggestions for continued development of peer reviewer competencies. The workshop was evaluated using a custom survey. Results: Throughout 2019 and early 2020, 58 health professions educators and trainees participated in the workshop across varied venues. Evaluations were obtained from 33 participants (57%). Nearly all rated the workshop as high quality and valuable to peer reviewer preparation. Most (26 of 33; 75%) gained confidence about their qualifications to serve as reviewers. Eighty percent (28 of 33) believed they could recognize ethical dilemmas. Discussion: This workshop provided a springboard for peer reviewing health professions education scholarship. Participants generally praised the experience for introducing them to the world of peer review and preparing them for it.

Twelve tips for developing, implementing, and sustaining medical education fellowship programs: Building on new trends and solid foundations.

Medical education fellowship programs (MEFPs) are a form of faculty development contributing to an organization's educational mission and participants' career development. Building an MEFP requires a systematic design, implementation, and evaluation approach which aligns institutional and individual faculty goals. Implementing an MEFP requires a team of committed individuals who provide expertise, guidance, and mentoring. Qualified MEFP directors should utilize instructional methods that promote individual and institutional short and long term growth. Directors must balance the use of traditional design, implementation, and evaluation methodologies with advancing trends that may support or threaten the acceptability and sustainability of the program. Drawing on the expertise of 28 MEFP directors, we provide twelve tips as a guide to those implementing, sustaining, and/or growing a successful MEFP whose value is demonstrated by its impacts on participants, learners, patients, teaching faculty, institutions, the greater medical education community, and the population's health.

A hypothesis-driven physical examination learning and assessment procedure for medical students: initial validity evidence.

CONTEXT: Diagnostic accuracy is maximised by having clinical signs and diagnostic hypotheses in mind during the physical examination (PE). This diagnostic reasoning approach contrasts with the rote, hypothesis-free screening PE learned by many medical students. A hypothesis-driven PE (HDPE) learning and assessment procedure was developed to provide targeted practice and assessment in anticipating, eliciting and interpreting critical aspects of the PE in the context of diagnostic challenges. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to obtain initial content validity evidence, performance and reliability estimates, and impact data for the HDPE procedure. METHODS: Nineteen clinical scenarios were developed, covering 160 PE manoeuvres. A total of 66 Year 3 medical students prepared for and encountered three clinical scenarios during required formative assessments. For each case, students listed anticipated positive PE findings for two plausible diagnoses before examining the patient; examined a standardised patient (SP) simulating one of the diagnoses; received immediate feedback from the SP, and documented their findings and working diagnosis. The same students later encountered some of the scenarios during their Year 4 clinical skills examination. RESULTS: On average, Year 3 students anticipated 65% of the positive findings, correctly performed 88% of the PE manoeuvres and documented 61% of the findings. Year 4 students anticipated and elicited fewer findings overall, but achieved proportionally more discriminating findings, thereby more efficiently achieving a diagnostic accuracy equivalent to that of students in Year 3. Year 4 students performed better on cases on which they had received feedback as Year 3 students. Twelve cases would provide a reliability of 0.80, based on discriminating checklist items only. CONCLUSIONS: The HDPE provided medical students with a thoughtful, deliberate approach to learning and assessing PE skills in a valid and reliable manner.