A Scoping Review of Physicians' Clinical Reasoning in Emergency Departments.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Clinical reasoning is considered a core competency of physicians. Yet there is a paucity of research on clinical reasoning specifically in emergency medicine, as highlighted in the literature. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to examine the state of research on clinical reasoning in this specialty. Our team, composed of content and methodological experts, identified 3,763 articles in the literature, 95 of which were included. RESULTS: Most studies were published after 2000. Few studies focused on the cognitive processes involved in decisionmaking (ie, clinical reasoning). Of these, many confirmed findings from the general literature on clinical reasoning; specifically, the role of both intuitive and analytic processes. We categorized factors that influence decisionmaking into contextual, patient, and physician factors. Many studies focused on decisions in regard to investigations and admission. Test ordering is influenced by physicians' experience, fear of litigation, and concerns about malpractice. Fear of litigation and malpractice also increases physicians' propensity to admit patients. Context influences reasoning but findings pertaining to specific factors, such as patient flow and workload, were inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Many studies used designs such as descriptive or correlational methods, limiting the strength of findings. Many gray areas persist, in which studies are either scarce or yield conflicting results. The findings of this scoping review should encourage us to intensify research in the field of emergency physicians' clinical reasoning, particularly on the cognitive processes at play and the factors influencing them, using appropriate theoretical frameworks and more robust methods.

Mapping clinical reasoning literature across the health professions: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical reasoning is at the core of health professionals' practice. A mapping of what constitutes clinical reasoning could support the teaching, development, and assessment of clinical reasoning across the health professions. METHODS: We conducted a scoping study to map the literature on clinical reasoning across health professions literature in the context of a larger Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) review on clinical reasoning assessment. Seven databases were searched using subheadings and terms relating to clinical reasoning, assessment, and Health Professions. Data analysis focused on a comprehensive analysis of bibliometric characteristics and the use of varied terminology to refer to clinical reasoning. RESULTS: Literature identified: 625 papers spanning 47 years (1968-2014), in 155 journals, from 544 first authors, across eighteen Health Professions. Thirty-seven percent of papers used the term clinical reasoning; and 110 other terms referring to the concept of clinical reasoning were identified. Consensus on the categorization of terms was reached for 65 terms across six different categories: reasoning skills, reasoning performance, reasoning process, outcome of reasoning, context of reasoning, and purpose/goal of reasoning. Categories of terminology used differed across Health Professions and publication types. DISCUSSION: Many diverse terms were present and were used differently across literature contexts. These terms likely reflect different operationalisations, or conceptualizations, of clinical reasoning as well as the complex, multi-dimensional nature of this concept. We advise authors to make the intended meaning of 'clinical reasoning' and associated terms in their work explicit in order to facilitate teaching, assessment, and research communication.

The challenges of detecting progress in generic competencies in the clinical setting.

CONTEXT: Competency-based medical education has spurred the implementation of longitudinal workplace-based assessment (WBA) programmes to track learners' development of competencies. These hinge on the appropriate use of assessment instruments by assessors. This study aimed to validate our assessment programme and specifically to explore whether assessors' beliefs and behaviours rendered the detection of progress possible. METHODS: We implemented a longitudinal WBA programme in the third year of a primarily rotation-based clerkship. The programme used the professionalism mini-evaluation exercise (P-MEX) to detect progress in generic competencies. We used mixed methods: a retrospective psychometric examination of student assessment data in one academic year, and a prospective focus group and interview study of assessors' beliefs and reported behaviours related to the assessment. RESULTS: We analysed 1662 assessment forms for 186 students. We conducted interviews and focus groups with 21 assessors from different professions and disciplines. Scores were excellent from the outset (3.5-3.7/4), with no meaningful increase across blocks (average overall scores: 3.6 in block 1 versus 3.7 in blocks 2 and 3; F = 8.310, d.f. 2, p < 0.001). The main source of variance was the forms (47%) and only 1% of variance was attributable to students, which led to low generalisability across forms (Eρ2  = 0.18). Assessors reported using multiple observations to produce their assessments and were reluctant to harm students by consigning anything negative to writing. They justified the use of a consistent benchmark across time by citing the basic nature of the form or a belief that the 'competencies' assessed were in fact fixed attributes that were unlikely to change. CONCLUSIONS: Assessors may purposefully deviate from instructions in order to meet their ethical standards of good assessment. Furthermore, generic competencies may be viewed as intrinsic and fixed rather than as learnable. Implementing a longitudinal WBA programme is complex and requires careful consideration of assessors' beliefs and values.

Diagnosis and management of clinical reasoning difficulties: Part II. Clinical reasoning difficulties: Management and remediation strategies.

Part II of this AMEE Guide provides a detailed overview of the main difficulties in clinical reasoning, including the cues to look out for in clinical supervision, the root causes of each difficulty and targeted remediation strategies. Specific challenges and issues related to the management of clinical reasoning difficulties will also be discussed.

Diagnosis and management of clinical reasoning difficulties: Part I. Clinical reasoning supervision and educational diagnosis.

There are many obstacles to the timely identification of clinical reasoning difficulties in health professions education. This guide aims to provide readers with a framework for supervising clinical reasoning and identifying the potential difficulties as they may occur at each step of the reasoning process.

From Context Comes Expertise: How Do Expert Emergency Physicians Use Their Know-Who to Make Decisions?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Decisionmaking is influenced by the environment in which it takes place. The objective of our study was to explore the influence of the specific features of the emergency department (ED) environment on decisionmaking. In this paper, we specifically report on the way emergency physicians use their knowledge of their collaborators to make their decisions. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study on emergency physicians recruited in 3 French hospitals. Physicians were equipped with a microcamera to record their clinical activity from their "own-point-of-view perspective." Semistructured interviews, based on viewing the video, were held with each physician after an actual clinical encounter with a patient. They were then analyzed thematically, using constant comparison and matrices, to identify the central themes. RESULTS: Fifteen expert emergency physicians were interviewed. Almost all of them reported using their knowledge of other health care professionals to assess the seriousness of the patient's overall condition (sometimes even before his or her arrival in the ED) to optimize the patient's treatment and to anticipate future care. CONCLUSION: Emergency physicians interact with many other health care workers during the different stages of the patient's management. The many ways in which experts use their knowledge of other health care professionals to make decisions puts traditional conceptions of expert knowledge into perspective and opens avenues for future research.

Social dominance theory and medical specialty choice.

Understanding how medical students select their specialty is a fundamental issue for public health and educational policy makers. One of the factors that students take into account is a specialty's prestige which hinges partly on its focus on technique rather than whole person. We examine the potential of a psychological framework, social dominance theory, to explain why some students, and not others, are drawn to more prestigious, technique-oriented specialties, based on their desire for hierarchy. We conducted a cross-sectional study among medical students at Institution X (N = 359). We examined the link between medical students' characteristics i.e. social dominance orientation (SDO), gender, age, and their career intention. We also examined level of medical students' SDO at different stages of the curriculum. SDO scores were significantly associated with technique-oriented career intentions (OR 1.56; 95 % CI [1.18, 2.06]; p = 0.001). The effect was independent of gender. Medical students' SDO scores were significantly higher in later stages of the medical curriculum (F = 6.79; p = 0. 001). SDO is a significant predictor of medical students' career intention. SDO scores are higher in students during the clinical phase of the curriculum. Medical socialization, involving the internalization of implicit and explicit norms, particularly in hospital settings, is likely to underpin our findings. This theory illuminates consistent findings in the literature on specialty prestige and the influence of medical school on career choice.

In Brief: Validity of Case Summaries in Written Examinations of Clinical Reasoning.

Construct: The purpose of this study was to provide initial evidence of the validity of written case summaries as assessments of clinical problem representation in a classroom setting. BACKGROUND: To solve clinical problems, clinicians must gain a clear representation of the issues. In the clinical setting, oral case presentations-or summaries-are used to assess learners' ability to gather, synthesize, and "translate" pertinent case information. This ability can be assessed in Objective Structured Clinical Examination and Virtual Patient settings using oral or written case summaries. Evidence of their validity in these settings includes adequate interrater agreement and moderate correlation with other assessments of clinical reasoning. We examined the use of written case summaries in a classroom setting as part of an examination designed to assess clinical reasoning. APPROACH: We developed and implemented written examinations for 2 preclerkship general practice courses in Years 4 and 5 of a 7-year curriculum. Examinations included 8 case summary questions in Year 4 and 5 in Year 5. Seven hundred students participated. Cases were scored using 3 criteria: extraction of pertinent findings, semantic quality, and global ratings. We examined the item parameters (using classical test theory) and generalizability of case summary items. We computed correlations between case summary scores and scores on other questions within the examination. RESULTS: Item parameters were acceptable (average item difficulty = 0.49-0.73 and 0.59-0.68 in Years 4 and 5; average point-biserials = 0.21-0.24 and 0.18-0.21). Scores were moderately generalizable (G coefficients = 0.40-0.50), with case-specificity a substantial source of measurement error (10.2%-19.5% of variance). Scoring and rater had small effects. Correlations with related constructs were low to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: There is good evidence regarding the scoring and generalizability of written case summaries for assessment of clinical problem representation. Further evidence regarding the extrapolation and implications of these assessments is warranted.

How and when do expert emergency physicians generate and evaluate diagnostic hypotheses? A qualitative study using head-mounted video cued-recall interviews.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The ability to make a diagnosis is a crucial skill in emergency medicine. Little is known about the way emergency physicians reach a diagnosis. This study aims to identify how and when, during the initial patient examination, emergency physicians generate and evaluate diagnostic hypotheses. METHODS: We carried out a qualitative research project based on semistructured interviews with emergency physicians. The interviews concerned management of an emergency situation during routine medical practice. They were associated with viewing the video recording of emergency situations filmed in an "own-point-of-view" perspective. RESULTS: The emergency physicians generated an average of 5 diagnostic hypotheses. Most of these hypotheses were generated before meeting the patient or within the first 5 minutes of the meeting. The hypotheses were then rank ordered within the context of a verification procedure based on identifying key information. These tasks were usually accomplished without conscious effort. No hypothesis was completely confirmed or refuted until the results of investigations were available. CONCLUSION: The generation and rank ordering of diagnostic hypotheses is based on the activation of cognitive processes, enabling expert emergency physicians to process environmental information and link it to past experiences. The physicians seemed to strive to avoid the risk of error by remaining aware of the possibility of alternative hypotheses as long as they did not have the results of investigations. Understanding the diagnostic process used by emergency physicians provides interesting ideas for training residents in a specialty in which the prevalence of reasoning errors leading to incorrect diagnoses is high.

"They were very very nice but just not very good": The interplay between resident-supervisor relationships and assessment in the emergency setting.

Purpose: Clinical supervisors hesitate to report learner weaknesses, a widely documented phenomenon referred to as "failure to fail." They also struggle to discuss weaknesses with learners themselves. Their reluctance to report and discuss learner weaknesses threatens the validity of assessment-of-learning decisions and the effectiveness of assessment for learning. Personal and interpersonal factors have been found to act as barriers to reporting learners' difficulties, but the precise role of the resident-supervisor relationship remains underexplored, specifically in the emergency setting. This study aims to better understand if and how factors related to the resident-supervisor relationship are involved in assessment of and for learning in the emergency setting. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study, using semistructured interviews of 15 clinical supervisors in emergency medicine departments affiliated with our institution. Transcripts were independently coded by three members of the team using an iterative mixed deductive-inductive thematic analysis approach. The team then synthesized the coding and discussed analysis following guidelines for thematic analysis. Results: Participating emergency medicine supervisors valued resident-supervisor relationships built on collaboration and trust and believed that such relationships support learning. They described how these relationships influenced assessment of and for learning and how in turn assessment influenced the relationship. Almost all profiles of resident-supervisor relationships in our study could hinder the disclosing of resident weaknesses, through a variety of mechanisms. To protect residents and themselves from the discomfort of disclosing weaknesses and to avoid deteriorating the resident-supervisor relationship, many downplayed or even masked residents' difficulties. Supervisors who described themselves as able to provide negative assessment of and for learning often adopted a more distant or professional stance. Conclusions: This study contributes to a growing literature on failure to fail by confirming the critical impact that the resident-supervisor relationship has on the willingness and ability of emergency medicine supervisors to play their part as assessors.

Script concordance testing: from theory to practice: AMEE guide no. 75.

The script concordance test (SCT) is used in health professions education to assess a specific facet of clinical reasoning competence: the ability to interpret medical information under conditions of uncertainty. Grounded in established theoretical models of knowledge organization and clinical reasoning, the SCT has three key design features: (1) respondents are faced with ill-defined clinical situations and must choose between several realistic options; (2) the response format reflects the way information is processed in challenging problem-solving situations; and (3) scoring takes into account the variability of responses of experts to clinical situations. SCT scores are meant to reflect how closely respondents' ability to interpret clinical data compares with that of experienced clinicians in a given knowledge domain. A substantial body of research supports the SCT's construct validity, reliability, and feasibility across a variety of health science disciplines, and across the spectrum of health professions education from pre-clinical training to continuing professional development. In practice, its performance as an assessment tool depends on careful item development and diligent panel selection. This guide, intended as a primer for the uninitiated in SCT, will cover the basic tenets, theoretical underpinnings, and construction principles governing script concordance testing.

If we assess, will they learn? Students' perspectives on the complexities of assessment-for-learning.

Introduction: Assessment can positively influence learning, however designing effective assessment-for-learning interventions has proved challenging. We implemented a mandatory assessment-for-learning system comprising a workplace-based assessment of non-medical expert competencies and a progress test in undergraduate medical education and evaluated its impact. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with year-3 and 4 medical students at McGill University to explore how the assessment system had influenced their learning in year 3. We conducted theory-informed thematic analysis of the data. Results: Eleven students participated, revealing that the assessment influenced learning through several mechanisms. Some required little student engagement (i.e., feed-up, test-enhanced learning, looking things up after an exam). Others required substantial engagement (e.g., studying for tests, selecting raters for quality feedback, using feedback). Student engagement was moderated by the perceived credibility of the system and of the costs and benefits of engagement. Credibility was shaped by students' goals-in-context: becoming a good doctor, contributing to the healthcare team, succeeding in assessments. Discussion: Our assessment system failed to engage students enough to leverage its full potential. We discuss the inherent flaws and external factors that hindered student engagement. Assessment designers should leverage easy-to-control mechanisms to support assessment-for-learning and anticipate significant collaborative work to modify learning cultures.

Introduction: L'évaluation peut influencer positivement l'apprentissage mais la conception de dispositifs d'évaluation pour l'apprentissage efficaces s'avère difficile. Nous avons implanté en formation prédoctorale un système obligatoire d'évaluation pour l'apprentissage comprenant une évaluation en milieu clinique des compétences transversales et un test de rendement progressif, puis évalué ses effets. Méthodes: Nous avons mené des entretiens semi-dirigés avec des étudiants en troisième et quatrième années de médecine à l'Université McGill pour explorer la manière dont le système d'évaluation avait influencé leur apprentissage au cours de la troisième année. Nous avons effectué une analyse thématique, informée par la théorie, des données. Résultats: Onze étudiants ont participé. Les résultats indiquent que l'évaluation a influencé leur apprentissage par le biais de plusieurs mécanismes différents. Certains d'entre eux nécessitaient une implication faible de la part de l'étudiant, comme l'identification des objectifs à atteindre (feed-up), l'apprentissage amélioré par les tests, la recherche d'informations après un examen. D'autres exigeaient une implication importante (par exemple, étudier pour les tests, sélectionner les évaluateurs pour obtenir une rétroaction de qualité, mettre à profit la rétroaction). L'implication des étudiants était modulée par leur perception des avantages et des inconvénients de s'impliquer, et de la crédibilité du système. Cette dernière était influencée par les objectifs-en-contexte des étudiants: devenir un bon médecin, contribuer à l'équipe soignante, réussir les épreuves d'évaluation. Discussion: Notre système d'évaluation n'a pas réussi à impliquer suffisamment les étudiants que pour réaliser son potentiel. Nous abordons les défauts inhérents au système ainsi que les facteurs externes qui ont entravé l'implication des apprenants. Pour implanter efficacement un dispositif d'évaluation pour l'apprentissage, les concepteurs d'évaluations devraient optimiser les mécanismes qui sont faciles à contrôler et être prêts à s'investir dans un important travail de collaboration pour changer les cultures d'apprentissage.

Impact of emotional competence on physicians' clinical reasoning: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical reasoning (CR) is a key competence for physicians and a major source of damaging medical errors. Many strategies have been explored to improve CR quality, most of them based on knowledge enhancement, cognitive debiasing and the use of analytical reasoning. If increasing knowledge and fostering analytical reasoning have shown some positive results, the impact of debiasing is however mixed. Debiasing and promoting analytical reasoning have also been criticised for their lack of pragmatism. Alternative means of increasing CR quality are therefore still needed. Because emotions are known to influence the quality of reasoning in general, we hypothesised that emotional competence (EC) could improve physicians' CR. EC refers to the ability to identify, understand, express, regulate and use emotions. The influence of EC on CR remains unclear. This article presents a scoping review protocol, the aim of which will be to describe the current state of knowledge concerning the influence of EC on physicians' CR, the type of available literature and finally the different methods used to examine the link between EC and CR. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: The population of interest is physicians and medical students. EC will be explored according to the model of Mikolajczak et al, describing five major components of EC (identify, understand, express, regulate and use emotions). The concept of CR will include terms related to its processes and outcomes. Context will include real or simulated clinical situations. The search for primary sources and reviews will be conducted in MEDLINE (via Ovid), Scopus and PsycINFO. The grey literature will be searched in the references of included articles and in OpenGrey. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted using the Covidence software. Search and inclusion results will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping review model (PRISMA-ScR). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There are no ethical or safety concerns regarding this review. REGISTRATION DETAILS: OSF Registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GM7YD.

How to construct and implement script concordance tests: insights from a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Programmes of assessment should measure the various components of clinical competence. Clinical reasoning has been traditionally assessed using written tests and performance-based tests. The script concordance test (SCT) was developed to assess clinical data interpretation skills. A recent review of the literature examined the validity argument concerning the SCT. Our aim was to provide potential users with evidence-based recommendations on how to construct and implement an SCT. METHODS: A systematic review of relevant databases (MEDLINE, ERIC [Education Resources Information Centre], PsycINFO, the Research and Development Resource Base [RDRB, University of Toronto]) and Google Scholar, medical education journals and conference proceedings was conducted for references in English or French. It was supplemented by ancestry searching and by additional references provided by experts. RESULTS: The search yielded 848 references, of which 80 were analysed. Studies suggest that tests with around 100 items (25-30 cases), of which 25% are discarded after item analysis, should provide reliable scores. Panels with 10-20 members are needed to reach adequate precision in terms of estimated reliability. Panellists' responses can be analysed by checking for moderate variability among responses. Studies of alternative scoring methods are inconclusive, but the traditional scoring method is satisfactory. There is little evidence on how best to determine a pass/fail threshold for high-stakes examinations. CONCLUSIONS: Our literature search was broad and included references from medical education journals not indexed in the usual databases, conference abstracts and dissertations. There is good evidence on how to construct and implement an SCT for formative purposes or medium-stakes course evaluations. Further avenues for research include examining the impact of various aspects of SCT construction and implementation on issues such as educational impact, correlations with other assessments, and validity of pass/fail decisions, particularly for high-stakes examinations.

Varying conceptions of competence: an analysis of how health sciences educators define competence.

CONTEXT: Current debate in medical education focuses on the nature of 'competency-based medical education' (CBME) and whether or not it should be adopted. Many medical schools claim to run 'competency-based' curricula, but the structure of their programmes can differ radically. A review of the existing CBME literature reveals that little attention has been paid to defining the concept of competence. A straightforward examination of what is meant by the term 'competence' is noticeably missing from the literature, despite its impact on medical training. OBJECTIVES: This paper aims to illustrate the varying conceptions of 'competence' by comparing and contrasting definitions provided in the health sciences education literature and discussing their respective impacts on medical education. METHODS: A systematic review of recent publications in medical education journals published in English and French was conducted to extract definitions of competence or, if definitions were not explicitly stated, to derive the authors' implicit conception of competence. A sample of 14 definitions from articles in the health sciences education field was studied using thematic analysis. RESULTS: There is agreement that competence is composed of knowledge, skills and other components. Although agreement about the nature of these other components is lacking, attitudes and values are suggested to be essential ingredients of competence. Furthermore, a clear divergence in conceptions of how a competent person utilises these components is apparent. One view specifies that competence involves selecting components according to specific situations, as required. A second view places greater emphasis on the synergy that results from the use of a combination of components in a given situation. CONCLUSIONS: These conceptual distinctions have many implications for the way CBME is implemented. A conception of competence as the selection of components may lead to a greater emphasis, in a training setting, on the mastery of each component separately. A conception of competence as the use of a combination of components leads to greater emphasis on the synergy that results as they are deployed in clinical situations.

What is so difficult about managing clinical reasoning difficulties?

CONTEXT: Clinical reasoning is the cornerstone of medical competence. Difficulties in this area are often identified late in clinical training. Studies point to challenges faced by clinical educators in their dual roles as clinicians and educators. Little is known about the common, yet complex, issue of how they manage clinical reasoning difficulties. We therefore sought to: (i) describe the current state of affairs in various clinical teaching settings, and (ii) explore the factors that determine the behaviour of clinical educators in this respect. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted with 26 clinical educators in general practice, internal medicine and emergency medicine in Belgium and Switzerland. Two researchers analysed the transcripts of the focus group discussions using Fishbein's integrative model of behaviour prediction in a theory-driven, immersion-crystallisation process. Experienced faculty members validated the findings. RESULTS: Across diverse settings, the process of identifying and remediating clinical reasoning difficulties was unstructured. Consistent with Fishbein's model, clinical educators' underlying beliefs determined their behaviour. They believed in the apprenticeship model of learning in the clinical environment, in which their educational role was limited to role-modelling and in which residents were responsible for assimilating skills. They were sceptical about the potential impact of remediation. A few more knowledgeable supervisors had a stronger sense of their educational role, but did not implement systematic procedures to manage clinical reasoning difficulties. Environmental constraints were symptomatic of a collective paradigm of residency as an apprenticeship, in which the focus is on clinical duties, rather than as an educational programme. CONCLUSIONS: In order to improve the current state of affairs in the management of clinical reasoning difficulties, a collective paradigm shift is required to alter the perception of residency as an apprenticeship to one of residency as a structured educational programme. Faculty development programmes should be designed in an integrated way so that they not only develop clinical educators' skills, but also modify their beliefs.

Validated methods of cough assessment: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Cough is a common symptom for which patients often seek medical advice and consume vast amounts of drugs. It is a real challenge for both the physician and the clinical researcher to evaluate a cough's clinical importance and its precise response to treatment. OBJECTIVES: This systematic literature review has the following objectives: first, to make an inventory of the validated tools for assessing cough, and second, to investigate the extent to which the results of various assessment methods can be correlated. METHODS: Two independent investigators searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for validation studies on cough assessment tools. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were included. Several ambulatory cough monitors automatically identify cough and have been validated in a limited number of patients. Three cough-specific quality-of-life scales (Leicester Cough Questionnaire, Cough Quality of Life Questionnaire, and Burden of Cough Questionnaire) have been validated. No validation studies of descriptive scores or visual analogue scales were found. The correlations between quality-of-life scores and cough frequency were good. The correlations between descriptive scores or visual analogue scales and more objective methods, such as cough frequency monitoring or quality-of-life scores, were inconsistent. CONCLUSION: Cough-specific quality-of-life questionnaires can provide valid outcomes for research into cough. Although the current developments in cough monitoring devices are promising, further studies on a larger scale, under more realistic conditions, and for different patterns of cough are required before they can be recommended for widespread use.

Does Educational Handover Influence Subsequent Assessment?

PURPOSE: Educational handover (i.e., providing information about learners' past performance) is controversial. Proponents argue handover could help tailor learning opportunities. Opponents fear it could bias subsequent assessments and lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. This study examined whether raters provided with reports describing learners' minor weaknesses would generate different assessment scores or narrative comments than those who did not receive such reports. METHOD: In this 2018 mixed-methods, randomized, controlled, experimental study, clinical supervisors from 5 postgraduate (residency) programs were randomized into 3 groups receiving no educational handover (control), educational handover describing weaknesses in medical expertise, and educational handover describing weaknesses in communication. All participants watched the same videos of 2 simulated resident-patient encounters and assessed performance using a shortened mini-clinical evaluation exercise form. The authors compared mean scores, percentages of negative comments, comments focusing on medical expertise, and comments focusing on communication across experimental groups using analyses of variance. They examined potential moderating effects of supervisor experience, gender, and mindsets (fixed vs growth). RESULTS: Seventy-two supervisors participated. There was no effect of handover report on assessment scores (F(2, 69) = 0.31, P = .74) or percentage of negative comments (F(2, 60) = 0.33, P = .72). Participants who received a report indicating weaknesses in communication generated a higher percentage of comments on communication than the control group (63% vs 50%, P = .03). Participants who received a report indicating weaknesses in medical expertise generated a similar percentage of comments on expertise compared to the controls (46% vs 47%, P = .98). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides initial empirical data about the effects of educational handover and suggests it can-in some circumstances-lead to more targeted feedback without influencing scores. Further studies are required to examine the influence of reports for a variety of performance levels, areas of weakness, and learners.

The perception of the clinical relevance of the MDS-Home Care(C) tool by trainers in general practice in Belgium.

BACKGROUND: comprehensive geriatric assessment has been advocated as an effective way to first identify multidimensional needs and second to establish priorities for organizing an individual health care plan for community-dwelling elderly. This paper reports on the perception of an internationally evaluated assessment system for use in community care programmes, the Minimal Data Set-Home Care (MDS-HC), by a group of experienced GP trainers. OBJECTIVE: the primary study aim was to determine the perception of a standardized home care assessment system (MDS-HC) by GP trainers in terms of acceptability, perceived clinical relevance, care planning empowerment and valorization of the GP. METHODS: sixty-five first-year GP trainees were educated about the MDS-HC and the use of a first version of an electronic interface. Each trainee included two elderly patients, based on strict inclusion criteria. Prior to the assessment, GP trainers and trainees were invited to complete together a basic medical record on the basis of their knowledge of the included patients. Next, the collected data, covering the multiple domains by MDS-HC, were introduced in the electronic interface by the trainee. Based on the collected data for each patient, a series of clinical assessment protocols (CAP's) were generated. Afterwards, these CAP's were critically discussed with the trainer. To investigate how the application of the MDS-HC was perceived, a 21 Likert-type item scale was drawn up based on four dimensions regarding the tool. RESULTS: the perception questionnaire had a good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.93). The first version of the electronic interface was considered not 'user-friendly' enough and the introduction of data time-consuming. The perception of the GP's about the overall clinical relevance of the MDS-HC was found to have little added value for the GP in the establishment of a personal management plan. CONCLUSIONS: many developments in health care result in an increasing demand for a standardized home care assessment system. In Belgium, the federal public health service advised to promote the MDS-HC for use in the community setting. In this study, it appears that its added value was not perceived by this sample of 37 experienced GP trainers as an empowering tool in term of management of the patient and valorization of the role of GP.