UK Prescribing Safety Assessment (PSA): The development, implementation and outcomes of a national online prescribing assessment.

AIMS: The United Kingdom (UK) Prescribing Safety Assessment (PSA) is a 2-h online assessment of basic competence to prescribe and supervise the use of medicines. It has been undertaken by students and doctors in UK medical and foundation schools for the past decade. This study describes the academic characteristics and performance of the assessment; longitudinal performance of candidates and schools; stakeholder feedback; and surrogate markers of prescribing safety in UK healthcare practice. METHODS: We reviewed the performance data generated by over 70 000 medical students and 3700 foundation doctors who have participated in the PSA since its inception in 2013. These data were supplemented by Likert scale and free text feedback from candidates and a variety of stakeholder groups. Further data on medication incidents, collected by national reporting systems and the regulatory body, are reported, with permission. RESULTS: We demonstrate the feasibility, high quality and reliability of an online prescribing assessment, uniquely providing a measure of prescribing competence against a national standard. Over 90% of candidates pass the PSA on their first attempt, while a minority are identified for further training and assessment. The pass rate shows some variation between different institutions and between undergraduate and foundation cohorts. Most responders to a national survey agreed that the PSA is a useful instrument for assessing prescribing competence, and an independent review has recommended adding the PSA to the Medical Licensing Assessment. Surrogate markers suggest there has been improvement in prescribing safety in practice, temporally associated with the introduction of the PSA but other factors could be influential too. CONCLUSIONS: The PSA is a practical and cost-effective way of delivering a reliable national assessment of prescribing competence that has educational impact and is supported by the majority of stakeholders. There is a need to develop national systems to identify and report prescribing errors and the harm they cause, enabling the impact of educational interventions to be measured.

The impact of patient skin colour on diagnostic ability and confidence of medical students.

Previous literature has explored unconscious racial biases in clinical education and medicine, finding that people with darker skin tones can be underrepresented in learning resources and managed differently in a clinical setting. This study aimed to examine whether patient skin colour can affect the diagnostic ability and confidence of medical students, and their cognitive reasoning processes. We presented students with 12 different clinical presentations on both white skin (WS) and non-white skin (NWS). A think aloud (TA) study was conducted to explore students' cognitive reasoning processes (n = 8). An online quiz was also conducted where students submitted a diagnosis and confidence level for each clinical presentation (n = 185). In the TA interviews, students used similar levels of information gathering and analytical reasoning for each skin type but appeared to display increased uncertainty and reduced non-analytical reasoning methods for the NWS images compared to the WS images. In the online quiz, students were significantly more likely to accurately diagnose five of the 12 clinical presentations (shingles, cellulitis, Lyme disease, eczema and meningococcal disease) on WS compared to NWS (p < 0.01). With regards to students' confidence, they were significantly more confident diagnosing eight of the 12 clinical presentations (shingles, cellulitis, Lyme disease, eczema, meningococcal disease, urticaria, chickenpox and Kawasaki disease) on WS when compared to NWS (p < 0.01). These findings highlight the need to improve teaching resources to include a greater diversity of skin colours exhibiting clinical signs, to improve students' knowledge and confidence, and ultimately, to avoid patients being misdiagnosed due to the colour of their skin.

Twelve tips for introducing very short answer questions (VSAQs) into your medical curriculum.

Most undergraduate written examinations use multiple-choice questions, such as single best answer questions (SBAQs) to assess medical knowledge. In recent years, a strong evidence base has emerged for the use of very short answer questions (VSAQs). VSAQs have been shown to be an acceptable, reliable, discriminatory, and cost-effective assessment tool in both formative and summative undergraduate assessments. VSAQs address many of the concerns raised by educators using SBAQs including inauthentic clinical scenarios, cueing and test-taking behaviours by students, as well as the limited feedback SBAQs provide for both students and teachers. The widespread use of VSAQs in medical assessment has yet to be adopted, possibly due to lack of familiarity and experience with this assessment method. The following twelve tips have been constructed using our own practical experience of VSAQs alongside supporting evidence from the literature to help medical educators successfully plan, construct and implement VSAQs within medical curricula.

Is Academic Attainment or Situational Judgment Test Performance in Medical School Associated With the Likelihood of Disciplinary Action? A National Retrospective Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Disciplinary action imposed on physicians indicates their fitness to practice medicine is impaired and patient safety is potentially at risk. This national retrospective cohort study sought to examine whether there was an association between academic attainment or performance on a situational judgment test (SJT) in medical school and the risk of receiving disciplinary action within the first 5 years of professional practice in the United Kingdom. METHOD: The authors included data from the UK Medical Education Database for 34,865 physicians from 33 U.K. medical schools that started the UK Foundation Programme (similar to internship) between 2014 and 2018. They analyzed data from 2 undergraduate medical assessments used in the United Kingdom: the Educational Performance Measure (EPM), which is based on academic attainment, and SJT, which is an assessment of professional attributes. The authors calculated hazard ratios (HRs) for EPM and SJT scores. RESULTS: The overall rate of disciplinary action was low (65/34,865, 0.19%) and the mean time to discipline was 810 days (standard deviation [SD] = 440). None of the physicians with fitness to practice concerns identified as students went on to receive disciplinary action after they qualified as physicians. The multivariate survival analysis demonstrated that a score increase of 1 SD (approximately 7.6 percentage points) on the EPM reduced the hazard of disciplinary action by approximately 50% (HR = 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38, 0.69; P < .001). There was not a statistically significant association between the SJT score and the hazard of disciplinary action (HR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.62, 1.13; P = .24). CONCLUSIONS: An increase in EPM score was significantly associated with a reduced hazard of disciplinary action, whereas performance on the SJT was not. Early identification of increased risk of disciplinary action may provide an opportunity for remediation and avoidance of patient harm.