Ibero-American consensus on learning outcomes for the acquisition of competencies by medical students through clinical simulation.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to reach expert consensus on specific learning outcomes (LOs) that can be achieved through clinical simulation aimed at developing the competencies that medical students need to be able to successfully manage patients and assume general clinical responsibilities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The six-member scientific committee peer-reviewed Spanish reference documentation (in line with the Bologna Process) on required competencies in medical undergraduate students to select an initial set of 16 competencies that could feasibly be developed through simulation and a corresponding set of 75 LOs. Snowball sampling was used to identify candidates for an international panel of simulation experts. Applying a set of pre-defined criteria, 19 panelists from seven Spanish-speaking regions were recruited to participate in a modified two-round Delphi procedure based on electronic questionnaires and aimed at reaching formal consensus on appropriate LOs for simulated medical training. RESULTS: Final agreement between the panelists was high: no mean score fell below 7.26 of a maximum of 9, and all 75 LOs were agreed on, 74 in the first round and only one requiring the second round. The 16 LOs with mean scores in the top 25th percentile were selected as a set of core LOs to attain via simulation. CONCLUSIONS: This Ibero-American consensus on observable and measurable LOs, reflecting competencies that can feasibly be developed via clinical simulation, is a framework that aims at helping medical schools' plans and delivering specific kinds of undergraduate medical training through simulation. It is also proposed in a set of core LOs as a starting point for less experienced schools to design a simulated training program.

Active study: undetected prevalence and clinical inertia in the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP).

AIMS: To prove if there is clinical inertia in the identification and treatment of episodes of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP), comparing actual results from clinical practice with clinical oncologists' prior perception. DESIGN: Observational and descriptive study, using information collected by practising medical oncologists, at three moments: (a) questionnaire regarding their professional judgement of the handling of patients with BTcP in their practice, (b) cross-sectional clinical screening, to detect possible existing cases of BTcP in a representative sample of their patients, (c) retrospective self-audit of clinical case histories of patients diagnosed with BTcP to find out about how it has been handled. PARTICIPANTS AND STUDY PERIOD: A random sample on a state level of 108 specialists in medical oncology. 540 patients who suffer some type of cancer pain on the designated study date for each specialist (July-December 2016). RESULTS: The global prevalence of BTcP in the study sample covered 91.3% of the patients who were suffering some type of cancer pain. Barely 2% of the doctors surveyed suspected figures around this mark. 40.9% of the cases had not been previously detected as BTcP by their doctors. Although 90% of the patients who had previously been diagnosed with BTcP received a specific analgesic treatment for the symptoms, 42% of those patients with known BTcP were not able to control their episodes of pain. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical inertia is a serious problem in the handling of BTcP in medical oncology services, where it is the subject of a significantly low level of detection and treatment, despite the contrasting perception of specialists.