Are We Ever Going Back? Exploring the Views of Health Professionals on Postpandemic Continuing Professional Development Modalities.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly altered the ways in which health care professionals engage with continuing professional development (CPD), but the extent to which these changes are permanent remains unknown at present. This mixed-methods research aims to capture the perspectives of health professionals on their preferences for CPD formats, including the conditions that inform preferences for in-person and online CPD events and the optimum length and type of online and in-person events. METHODS: A survey was used to gain a high-level perspective on health professionals' engagement with CPD, areas of interest, and capabilities and preferences in relation to online formats. A total of 340 health care professionals across 21 countries responded to the survey. Follow-up semistructured interviews were conducted with 16 respondents to gain deeper insights into their perspectives. RESULTS: Key themes include CPD activity before and during COVID, social and networking aspects, access versus engagement, cost, and time and timing. DISCUSSION: Recommendations regarding the design of both in-person and online events are included. Beyond merely moving in-person events online, innovative design approaches should be adopted to capitalize on the affordances of digital technologies and enhance engagement.

The 'connectaholic' behind the curtain: medical student use of computer devices in the clinical setting and the influence of patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of mobile devices such as tablets and laptops by students to support their learning is now ubiquitous. The clinical setting is an environment, which lends itself to the use of mobile devices as students are exposed to novel clinical scenarios that may require rapid location of information to address knowledge gaps. It is unknown what preferences students have for these devices and how they are used in the clinical environment. METHODS: In this study we explored medical students' choices and their use of different devices in their first year of clinical attachments. We sought to evaluate learners' experiences with these devices using a mixed methods approach. All students newly entered into the clinical years were given the option of a MacBook Air or iPad. We surveyed these students using an online survey tool followed by individual semi-structured interviews to explore survey findings in more depth. RESULTS: Students owned a multitude of devices however their preferences were for the 11 in. MacBook Air Laptop over the iPad mini. Students made constant use of online information to support their clinical learning, however three major themes emerged from the interview data: connection and devices (diverse personal ownership of technology by students and how this is applied to source educational materials), influence and interaction with patients (use of any device in a clinical setting) and influence and interaction with staff. In general students preferred to use their device in the absence of patients however context had a significant influence. CONCLUSIONS: These mobile devices were useful in the clinical setting by allowing access to online educational material. However, the presence of patients, and the behaviour of senior teaching staff significantly influenced their utilisation by students. Understanding the preferences of students for devices and how they use their preferred devices can help inform educational policy and maximise the learning from online educational content.

Is online case-based learning effective in helping undergraduate medical students choose the appropriate antibiotics to treat important infections?

BACKGROUND: Medical students are frequently confused about indication for and choice of antibiotic. We developed an online learning resource that focused on antibiotic stewardship and important infections where medical students could practise their antibiotic decision-making skills safely. METHODS: The resource was made available to third-year undergraduate medical students via their virtual learning environment. It covered the theory and fundamentals of antibiotic stewardship and five clinical cases covering important infections. We assessed the number of attempts taken to achieve the required level of understanding to pass each activity and surveyed a selection of students for their feedback. RESULTS: Of 310 students, over 80% engaged with the theory-based components, with an average score exceeding 90% (range 93.4%-99.7%). Eighty-three percent (258/310) engaged with the first two cases (Clostridioides difficile infection and pyelonephritis) but only 61% (189/310) of students completed the fifth case on bacterial meningitis. Only 49.4% (153/310) of students completed all five cases, with 48% (73/153) of these achieving ≥90% on their first attempt of the associated quizzes. Fifty-nine percent (23/39) agreed or strongly agreed that the quality of the learning resource was excellent. Seventy-two percent (28/39) agreed or strongly agreed that the objectives of the resource were relevant to their needs as undergraduate medical students. Only 33% (13/39) reported the resource would change their practice. CONCLUSIONS: Student feedback was positive but engagement with the cases needs improvement. Highlighting the utility of case-based technology-enhanced learning as a safe place to practise antibiotic decision-making skills among students may improve this.

A meta-analytic perspective on the valid use of subjective human judgement to make medical school admission decisions.

While medical educators appear to believe that admission to the medical school should be governed, at least in part, by human judgement, there has been no systematic presentation of evidence suggesting it improves selection. From a fair testing perspective, legal, ethical, and psychometric considerations, all dictate that the scientific evidence regarding human judgement in selection should be given consideration. To investigate the validity of using human judgements in admissions, multi-disciplinary meta-analytic research evidence from the wider literature is combined with studies from within medical education to provide evidence regarding the fairness and validity of using interviews and holistic review in medical school admissions. Fourteen studies, 6 of which are meta-analytic studies that summarized 292 individual studies, were included in the final review. Within these studies, a total of 33 studies evaluated the reliability of the traditional interview. These studies reveal that the interview has low to moderate reliability (~.42) which significantly limits its validity. This is confirmed by over 100 studies examining interview validity which collectively show interview scores to be moderately correlated with important outcome variables (corrected value ~.29). Meta-analyses of over 150 studies demonstrate that mechanical/formula-based selection decisions produce better results than decisions made with holistic/clinical methods (human judgement). Three conclusions regarding the use of interviews and holistic review are provided by these meta-analyses. First, it is clear that the traditional interview has low reliability and that this significantly limits its validity. Second, the reliable variance from interview scores appears moderately predictive of outcomes that are relevant to consider in medical school admission. And third, the use of holistic review as a method of incorporating human judgement is not a valid alternative to mechanical/statistical approaches as the evidence clearly indicates that mechanistic methods are more predictive, reliable, cost efficient, and transparent.

Investigating a self-scoring interview simulation for learning and assessment in the medical consultation.

Experience with simulated patients supports undergraduate learning of medical consultation skills. Adaptive simulations are being introduced into this environment. The authors investigate whether it can underpin valid and reliable assessment by conducting a generalizability analysis using IT data analytics from the interaction of medical students (in psychiatry) with adaptive simulations to explore the feasibility of adaptive simulations for supporting automated learning and assessment. The generalizability (G) study was focused on two clinically relevant variables: clinical decision points and communication skills. While the G study on the communication skills score yielded low levels of true score variance, the results produced by the decision points, indicating clinical decision-making and confirming user knowledge of the process of the Calgary-Cambridge model of consultation, produced reliability levels similar to what might be expected with rater-based scoring. The findings indicate that adaptive simulations have potential as a teaching and assessment tool for medical consultations.