The Florida Clinical Skills Collaborative: A New Regional Consortium for the Assessment of Clinical Skills.

Discontinuation of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) exam and Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) Level 2 Performance Evaluation (2-PE) raised questions about the ability of medical schools to ensure the clinical skills competence of graduating students. In February 2021, representatives from all Florida, United States, allopathic and osteopathic schools initiated a collaboration to address this critically important issue in the evolving landscape of medical education. A 5-point Likert scale survey of all members (n=18/20 individuals representing 10/10 institutions) reveals that initial interest in joining the collaboration was high among both individuals (mean 4.78, SD 0.43) and institutions (mean 4.69, SD 0.48). Most individuals (mean 4.78, SD 0.55) and institutions (mean 4.53, SD 0.72) are highly satisfied with their decision to join. Members most commonly cited a "desire to establish a shared assessment in place of Step 2 CS/2-PE" as their most important reason for joining. Experienced benefits of membership were ranked as the following: 1) Networking, 2) Shared resources for curriculum implementation, 3) Scholarship, and 4) Work towards a shared assessment in place of Step 2 CS/2-PE. Challenges of membership were ranked as the following: 1) Logistics such as scheduling and technology, 2) Agreement on common goals, 3) Total time commitment, and 4) Large group size. Members cited the "administration of a joint assessment pilot" as the highest priority for the coming year. Florida has successfully launched a regional consortium for the assessment of clinical skills competency with high levels of member satisfaction which may serve as a model for future regional consortia.

A Systematic Literature Review of Reviews on the Effectiveness of Chlamydia Testing.

Chlamydia trachomatis is the most common bacterial sexually transmitted infection, causing significant morbidity and economic burden. Strategies like national screening programs or home-testing kits were introduced in some developed countries, yet their effectiveness remains controversial. In this systematic review, we examined reviews of chlamydia screening interventions to assess their effectiveness and the elements that contribute to their success to guide public policy and future research. We assessed English material published after 2000 in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the British Nursing Index, Medical Database, and Sociological Abstracts, in addition to World Health Organization Global Health Sector Strategies, the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control guidelines, and the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Systematic reviews that focused on chlamydia screening interventions were included. Using the socioecological model, we examined the levels of interventions that may affect the uptake of chlamydia screening. A total of 19 systematic reviews were included. Self-collection in home-testing kits significantly increased screening among girls and women 14-50 years of age. At the organizational level, using electronic health records and not creating additional costs facilitated testing. At the community level, outreach interventions in community and parent centers and homeless shelters achieved high screening rates. At the policy level, interventions with educational and advisory elements could result in significant improvements in screening rates.

Economic evaluation of the cost of different methods of retesting chlamydia positive individuals in England.

OBJECTIVES: The National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP) in England opportunistically screens eligible individuals for chlamydia infection. Retesting is recommended three3 months after treatment following a positive test result, but no guidance is given on how local areas should recall individuals for retesting. Here , we compare cost estimates for different recall methods to inform the optimal delivery of retesting programmes. DESIGN: Economic evaluation. SETTING: England. METHODS: We estimated the cost of chlamydia retesting for each of the six most commonly used recall methods in 2014 based on existing cost estimates of a chlamydia screen. Proportions accepting retesting, opting for retesting by post, returning postal testing kits and retesting positive were informed by 2014 NCSP audit data. Health professionals 'sense-checked' the costs. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Cost and adjusted cost per chlamydia retest; cost and adjusted cost per chlamydia retest positive. RESULTS: We estimated the cost of the chlamydia retest pathway, including treatment/follow-up call, to be between £45 and £70 per completed test. At the lower end, this compared favourably to the cost of a clinic-based screen. Cost per retest positive was £389-£607. After adjusting for incomplete uptake, and non-return of postal kits, the cost rose to £109-£289 per completed test (cost per retest positive: £946-£2,506). The most economical method in terms of adjusted cost per retest was no active recall as gains in retest rates with active recall did not outweigh the higher cost. Nurse-led client contact by phone was particularly uneconomical, as was sending out postal testing kits automatically. CONCLUSIONS: Retesting without active recall is more economical than more intensive methods such as recalling by phone and automatically sending out postal kits. If sending a short message service (SMS) could be automated, this could be the most economical way of delivering retesting. However, patient choice and local accessibility of services should be taken into consideration in planning.

Application of the COM-B model to barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice for young people and primary care practitioners: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Chlamydia is a major public health concern, with high economic and social costs. In 2016, there were over 200,000 chlamydia diagnoses made in England. The highest prevalence rates are found among young people. Although annual testing for sexually active young people is recommended, many do not receive testing. General practice is one ideal setting for testing, yet attempts to increase testing in this setting have been disappointing. The Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B model) may help improve understanding of the underpinnings of chlamydia testing. The aim of this systematic review was to (1) identify barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing for young people and primary care practitioners in general practice and (2) map facilitators and barriers onto the COM-B model. METHODS: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies published after 2000 were included. Seven databases were searched to identify peer-reviewed publications which examined barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Data (i.e., participant quotations, theme descriptions, and survey results) regarding study design and key findings were extracted. The data was first analysed using thematic analysis, following this, the resultant factors were mapped onto the COM-B model components. All findings are reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: Four hundred eleven papers were identified; 39 met the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators were identified at the patient (e.g., knowledge), provider (e.g., time constraints), and service level (e.g., practice nurses). Factors were categorised into the subcomponents of the model: physical capability (e.g., practice nurse involvement), psychological capability (e.g.: lack of knowledge), reflective motivation (e.g., beliefs regarding perceived risk), automatic motivation (e.g., embarrassment and shame), physical opportunity (e.g., time constraints), social opportunity (e.g., stigma). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provides a synthesis of the literature which acknowledges factors across multiple levels and components. The COM-B model provided the framework for understanding the complexity of chlamydia testing behaviour. While we cannot at this juncture state which component represents the most salient influence on chlamydia testing, across all three levels, multiple barriers and facilitators were identified relating psychological capability and physical and social opportunity. Implementation should focus on (1) normalisation, (2) communication, (3) infection-specific information, and (4) mode of testing. In order to increase chlamydia testing in general practice, a multifaceted theory- and evidence-based approach is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016041786.

Exploring the costs and outcomes of sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening interventions targeting men in football club settings: preliminary cost-consequence analysis of the SPORTSMART pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the costs and outcomes of two sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening interventions targeted at men in football club settings in England, including screening promoted by team captains. METHODS: A comparison of costs and outcomes was undertaken alongside a pilot cluster randomised control trial involving three trial arms: (1) captain-led and poster STI screening promotion; (2) sexual health advisor-led and poster STI screening promotion and (3) poster-only STI screening promotion (control/comparator). For all study arms, resource use and cost data were collected prospectively. RESULTS: There was considerable variation in uptake rates between clubs, but results were broadly comparable across study arms with 50% of men accepting the screening offer in the captain-led arm, 67% in the sexual health advisor-led arm and 61% in the poster-only control arm. The overall costs associated with the intervention arms were similar. The average cost per player tested was comparable, with the average cost per player tested for the captain-led promotion estimated to be £88.99 compared with £88.33 for the sexual health advisor-led promotion and £81.87 for the poster-only (control) arm. CONCLUSIONS: Costs and outcomes were similar across intervention arms. The target sample size was not achieved, and we found a greater than anticipated variability between clubs in the acceptability of screening, which limited our ability to estimate acceptability for intervention arms. Further evidence is needed about the public health benefits associated with screening interventions in non-clinical settings so that their cost-effectiveness can be fully evaluated.