Enhancing effective healthcare communication in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand: Considerations for research, teaching, policy, and practice.

Objective: In this article we present a conceptual framework for enhancing effective healthcare communication in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Methods: Through an iterative, deliberative dialogue approach, we, as experts from a variety of health professions and academic disciplines, worked together to identify core values and considerations for healthcare communication across numerous health professions and disciplines and within research, teaching, policy, and practice contexts. Results: The framework developed includes five core values at its centre: equitable, inclusive, evidence-based, collaborative, reflective. Around this are concentric circles showing key elements of collaborators, modality, context, and purpose. Each of these is explored. Conclusion: This work may support benchmarking for healthcare providers, researchers, policymakers, and educators across a breadth of professions to help improve communication in clinical practice. The framework will also help to identify areas across disciplines that are shared and potentially idiosyncratic for various professions to promote interprofessional recognition, education, and collaboration. Innovation: This framework is designed to start conversations, to form the foundation of a dialogue about the priorities and key considerations for developing teaching curricula, professional development, and research programs related to healthcare communication, providing a set of values specifically for the unique contexts of Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. It can also be used to guide interdisciplinary healthcare professionals in advancing research, teaching, policy, and practice related to healthcare communication.

Twelve tips for improving the quality of assessor judgements in senior medical student clinical assessments.

Assessment of senior medical students is usually calibrated at the level of achieving expected learning outcomes for graduation. Recent research reveals that clinical assessors often balance two slightly different perspectives on this benchmark. The first is the formal learning outcomes at graduation, ideally as part of a systematic, program-wide assessment approach that measures learning achievement, while the second is consideration of the candidate's contribution to safe care and readiness for practice as a junior doctor. The second is more intuitive to the workplace, based on experience working with junior doctors. This perspective may enhance authenticity in assessment decisions made in OSCEs and work-based assessments to better align judgements and feedback with professional expectations that will guide senior medical students and junior doctors' future career development. Modern assessment practices should include consideration of qualitative as well as quantitative information, overtly including perspectives of patients, employers, and regulators. This article presents 12 tips for how medical education faculty might support clinical assessors by capturing workplace expectations of first year medical graduates and develop graduate assessments based on a shared heuristic of 'work-readiness'. Peer-to-peer assessor interaction should be facilitated to achieve correct calibration that 'merges' the differing perspectives to produce a shared construct of an acceptable candidate.

The impact of pandemic disruptions on clinical skills learning for pre-clinical medical students: implications for future educational designs.

BACKGROUND: Pandemic disruptions to medical education worldwide resulted in rapid adaptations to clinical skills learning. These adaptations included moving most teaching to the online environment, decreasing the accepted "hands-on" methods of teaching and learning. While studies have shown significant impacts on student confidence in skills acquisition, there is a paucity of assessment outcome studies which would contribute a valuable perspective on whether measurable deficits were incurred. Here, a preclinical (Year 2) cohort was investigated for clinical skills learning impacts that could influence their transition to hospital-based placements. METHODS: A sequential mixed methods approach was used on the Year 2 Medicine cohort, including: focus group discussions with thematic analysis; a survey derived from the themes observed; and a cohort comparison of the clinical skills examination results of the disrupted Year 2 cohort, compared to pre-pandemic cohorts. RESULTS: Students reported experiencing benefits and disadvantages of the shift to online learning, including a decrease in confidence in their skills acquisition. End of year summative clinical assessments showed non-inferior outcomes when compared to previous cohorts for the majority of clinical skills. However, for procedural skills (venepuncture) the disrupted cohort had significantly lower scores compared to a pre-pandemic cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid innovation during the COVID-19 pandemic provided the opportunity to compare online asynchronous hybrid clinical skills learning with the usual practice of face-to-face synchronous experiential learning. In this study, students' reported perceptions and assessment performance data indicate that careful selection of skills suitable for online teaching, supported by timetabled "hands-on" sessions and ample practice opportunities, is likely to provide non-inferior outcomes for clinical skills learning in students about to transition to clinical placements. The findings can be used to inform clinical skills curriculum designs that incorporate the virtual environment, and assist with future-proofing skills teaching in the case of further catastrophic disruptions.

"Could You Work in My Team?": Exploring How Professional Clinical Role Expectations Influence Decision-Making of Assessors During Exit-Level Medical School OSCEs.

Decision-making in clinical assessment, such as exit-level medical school Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs), is complex. This study utilized an empirical phenomenological qualitative approach with thematic analysis to explore OSCE assessors' perceptions of the concept of a "prototypical intern" expressed during focus group discussions. Topics discussed included the concept of a prototypical intern, qualities to be assessed, and approaches to clinical assessment decision-making. The thematic analysis was then applied to a theoretical framework (Cultural Historical Activity Theory-CHAT) that explored the complexity of making assessment decisions amidst potentially contradicting pressures from academic and clinical perspectives. Ten Australasian medical schools were involved with 15 experienced and five less experienced assessors participating. Thematic analysis of the data revealed four major themes in relation to how the prototypical intern concept influences clinical assessors' judgements: (a) Suitability of marking rubric based on assessor characteristics and expectations; (b) Competence as final year student vs. performance as a prototypical intern; (c) Safety, trustworthiness and reliability as constructs requiring assessment and (d) Contradictions in decision making process due to assessor differences. These themes mapped well within the interaction between two proposed activity systems in the CHAT model: academic and clinical. More clinically engaged and more experienced assessors tend to fall back on a heuristic, mental construct of a "prototypical intern," to calibrate judgements, particularly, in difficult situations. Further research is needed to explore whether consensus on desirable intern qualities and their inclusion into OSCE marksheets decreases the cognitive load and increases the validity of assessor decision making.

Virtual OSCE Delivery and Quality Assurance During a Pandemic: Implications for the Future.

Background: During 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic caused worldwide disruption to the delivery of clinical assessments, requiring medicals schools to rapidly adjust their design of established tools. Derived from the traditional face-to-face Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), the virtual OSCE (vOSCE) was delivered online, using a range of school-dependent designs. The quality of these new formats was evaluated remotely through virtual quality assurance (vQA). This study synthesizes the vOSCE and vQA experiences of stakeholders from participating Australian medical schools based on a Quality framework. Methods: This study utilized a descriptive phenomenological qualitative design. Focus group discussions (FGD) were held with 23 stakeholders, including examiners, academics, simulated patients, professional staff, students and quality assurance examiners. The data was analyzed using a theory-driven conceptual Quality framework. Results: The vOSCE was perceived as a relatively fit-for purpose assessment during pandemic physical distancing mandates. Additionally, the vOSCE was identified as being value-for-money and was noted to provide procedural benefits which lead to an enhanced experience for those involved. However, despite being largely delivered fault-free, the current designs are considered limited in the scope of skills they can assess, and thus do not meet the established quality of the traditional OSCE. Conclusions: Whilst virtual clinical assessments are limited in their scope of assessing clinical competency when compared with the traditional OSCE, their integration into programs of assessment does, in fact, have significant potential. Scholarly review of stakeholder experiences has elucidated quality aspects that can inform iterative improvements to the design and implementation of future vOSCEs.

Has the OSCE Met Its Final Demise? Rebalancing Clinical Assessment Approaches in the Peri-Pandemic World.

The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) has been traditionally viewed as a highly valued tool for assessing clinical competence in health professions education. However, as the OSCE typically consists of a large-scale, face-to-face assessment activity, it has been variably criticized over recent years due to the extensive resourcing and relative expense required for delivery. Importantly, due to COVID-pandemic conditions and necessary health guidelines in 2020 and 2021, logistical issues inherent with OSCE delivery were exacerbated for many institutions across the globe. As a result, alternative clinical assessment strategies were employed to gather assessment datapoints to guide decision-making regarding student progression. Now, as communities learn to "live with COVID", health professions educators have the opportunity to consider what weight should be placed on the OSCE as a tool for clinical assessment in the peri-pandemic world. In order to elucidate this timely clinical assessment issue, this qualitative study utilized focus group discussions to explore the perceptions of 23 clinical assessment stakeholders (examiners, students, simulated patients and administrators) in relation to the future role of the traditional OSCE. Thematic analysis of the FG transcripts revealed four major themes in relation to participants' views on the future of the OSCE vis-a-vis other clinical assessments in this peri-pandemic climate. The identified themes are (a) enduring value of the OSCE; (b) OSCE tensions; (c) educational impact; and (d) the importance of programs of assessment. It is clear that the OSCE continues to play a role in clinical assessments due to its perceived fairness, standardization and ability to yield robust results. However, recent experiences have resulted in a diminishing and refining of its role alongside workplace-based assessments in the new, peri-pandemic programs of assessment. Future programs of assessment should consider the strategic positioning of the OSCE within the context of utilizing a range of tools when determining students' clinical competence.

Developing a community of practice for quality assurance within healthcare assessment.

BACKGROUND: The Australian Collaboration for Clinical Assessment in Medicine (ACCLAiM) is a voluntary assessment consortium, involving medical schools nationwide. The aims of ACCLAiM are to benchmark student clinical assessment outcomes and to provide quality assurance (QA) of exit-level Objective Structured Clinical Exams (OSCEs). This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the ACCLAiM QA process for optimising OSCE delivery standards at the member schools using a Community of Practice (CoP) framework. METHODS: A mixed methods sequential explanatory design, involving an online questionnaire and subsequent focus group discussions, was utilised. Questionnaire responses were analysed using descriptive statistics, while thematic analysis was employed for the qualitative data. RESULTS: Data analysis revealed that school-specific OSCE practices had evolved based on QA feedback, as well as a collaborative sharing of expertise consistent with a CoP model. Extending beyond a QA working group for accountability and demonstration of minimum standards, participation in ACCLAiM QA processes is creating a sustainable socio-academic network focused on quality improvement. CONCLUSION: Collaborative QA in clinical assessment creates opportunities for optimising standards in OSCE processes and sharing of resources for OSCE assessments. It also allows for professional development and scholarly engagement in assessment research. These benefits contribute to the existence of an emergent CoP model.

Examiners' decision-making processes in observation-based clinical examinations.

BACKGROUND: Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) are commonly used to assess the clinical skills of health professional students. Examiner judgement is one acknowledged source of variation in candidate marks. This paper reports an exploration of examiner decision making to better characterise the cognitive processes and workload associated with making judgements of clinical performance in exit-level OSCEs. METHODS: Fifty-five examiners for exit-level OSCEs at five Australian medical schools completed a NASA Task Load Index (TLX) measure of cognitive load and participated in focus group interviews immediately after the OSCE session. Discussions focused on how decisions were made for borderline and clear pass candidates. Interviews were transcribed, coded and thematically analysed. NASA TLX results were quantitatively analysed. RESULTS: Examiners self-reported higher cognitive workload levels when assessing a borderline candidate in comparison with a clear pass candidate. Further analysis revealed five major themes considered by examiners when marking candidate performance in an OSCE: (a) use of marking criteria as a source of reassurance; (b) difficulty adhering to the marking sheet under certain conditions; (c) demeanour of candidates; (d) patient safety, and (e) calibration using a mental construct of the 'mythical [prototypical] intern'. Examiners demonstrated particularly higher mental demand when assessing borderline compared to clear pass candidates. CONCLUSIONS: Examiners demonstrate that judging candidate performance is a complex, cognitively difficult task, particularly when performance is of borderline or lower standard. At programme exit level, examiners intuitively want to rate candidates against a construct of a prototypical graduate when marking criteria appear not to describe both what and how a passing candidate should demonstrate when completing clinical tasks. This construct should be shared, agreed upon and aligned with marking criteria to best guide examiner training and calibration. Achieving this integration may improve the accuracy and consistency of examiner judgements and reduce cognitive workload.

Exploring tutor perceptions and current practices in facilitating diagnostic reasoning in preclinical medical students: Implications for tutor professional development needs.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Introduction: This study explores tutors' experience of teaching diagnostic reasoning (DR) - a key component of clinical reasoning - to build understanding into the use of explicit strategies in facilitating development of DR skills in preclinical medical students. Methods: A qualitative, interpretive study was undertaken with 14 preclinical problem-based learning tutors who participated in semi-structured interviews. A thematic analysis was conducted to identify key factors that influence students' learning of diagnostic reasoning. Results: Tutor dispositions towards facilitating learning of DR were variable in this study. Explicit strategies to teach DR were thought to exert positive influences on the development of DR skills, through improving student knowledge and reducing potential error. The advantages of using explicit strategies to teach DR outweighed the perceived difficulties identified in this context. Explicit strategies may need modification for preclinical students and the focus should be on building knowledge of classic presentations and developing metacognitive awareness. Conclusion: The use of explicit educational strategies will contribute to facilitating preclinical student learning of DR skills. Tutor professional development is a key component in the successful implementation of these strategies.