Involuntary isolation: interpreting mental health legislation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses new and unprecedented challenges to the interpretation of mental health law. The authors present pragmatic and ethical considerations in the psychiatric safety assessment at the intersection of COVID-19 and severe mental illness.

Establishing a community-based participatory research partnership among people who use drugs in Ottawa: the PROUD cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Grounded in a community-based participatory research (CBPR) framework, the PROUD (Participatory Research in Ottawa: Understanding Drugs) Study aims to better understand HIV risk and prevalence among people who use drugs in Ottawa, Ontario. The purpose of this paper is to describe the establishment of the PROUD research partnership. METHODS: PROUD relies on peers' expertise stemming from their lived experience with drug use to guide all aspects of this CBPR project. A Community Advisory Committee (CAC), comprised of eight people with lived experience, three allies and three ex-officio members, has been meeting since May 2012 to oversee all aspects of the project. Eleven medical students from the University of Ottawa were recruited to work alongside the committee. Training was provided on CBPR; HIV and harm reduction; and administering HIV point-of-care (POC) tests so that the CAC can play a key role in research design, data collection, analysis, and knowledge translation activities. RESULTS: From March-December 2013, the study enrolled 858 participants who use drugs (defined as anyone who has injected or smoked drugs other than marijuana in the last 12 months) into a prospective cohort study. Participants completed a one-time questionnaire administered by a trained peer or medical student, who then administered an HIV POC test. Recruitment, interviews and testing occurred in both the fixed research site and various community settings across Ottawa. With consent, prospective follow-up will occur through linkages to health care records available through the Institute for Clinical and Evaluation Sciences. CONCLUSION: The PROUD Study meaningfully engaged the communities of people who use drugs in Ottawa through the formation of the CAC, the training of peers as community-based researchers, and integrated KTE throughout the research project. This project successfully supported skill development across the team and empowered people with drug use experience to take on leadership roles, ensuring that this research process will promote change at the local level. The CBPR methods developed in this study provide important insights for future research projects with people who use drugs in other settings.

Ten ways to get a grip on resident co-production within medical education change.

The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) is transforming its national approach to postgraduate medical education by transitioning all specialty programs to competency based medical education (CBME) curriculums over a seven-year period. Queen's University, with special permission from the RCPSC, launched CBME curricula for all incoming residents across its 29 specialty programs in July 2017. Resident engagement, empowerment, and co-production through this transition has been instrumental in successful implementation of CBME at Queen's University. This article aims to use our own experience at Queen's in the context of current literature and rooted in change leadership theory, to provide a guide for educators, learners, and institutions on how to leverage the interest and enthusiasm of trainees in the transition to CBME in postgraduate training. The following ten tips provides a model for avoiding the "black ice" type pitfalls that can arise with learner involvement and ensure a smoother transition for other institutions moving forward with CBME implementation.

Le Collège royal des médecins et chirurgiens du Canada (CRMCC) s'emploie à transformer son approche nationale à la formation médicale postdoctorale en effectuant une transition, répartie sur une période de sept ans, de tous les programmes spécialisés vers des programmes de formation médicale axéesur les compétences (FMAC). En juillet 2017, l'Université Queen, avec une permission spéciale du CRMCC, a lancé des cursus de FMAC pour tous les nouveaux résidents de ses 29 programmes spécialisés. La participation, la capacité d'agiret la coproduction par lesrésidents pendant cette transition ont contribué à la mise en œuvre réussie de la FMAC à l'Université Queen. Le présent article vise à utiliser notre propre expérience à l'Université Queen dans le contexte de la littérature actuelle et est ancrésur la théorie du leadership en matière de changement, pour procurer un guide aux éducateurs, aux apprenants et aux établissements sur la manière de tirer parti de l'intérêt et de l'enthousiasme des apprenantsdans la transition vers la FMAC dans la formation postdoctorale. Les dix conseils suivants proposent un modèle pour éviter les écueils du type « glace noire ¼ qui peuvent survenir avec la participation de l'apprenant et s'assurer une transition plus harmonieuse pour les autres établissements qui vont de l'avant avec la mise en œuvre de la FMFC.

It's a Marathon, Not a Sprint: Rapid Evaluation of Competency-Based Medical Education Program Implementation.

PURPOSE: Despite the broad endorsement of competency-based medical education (CBME), myriad difficulties have arisen in program implementation. The authors sought to evaluate the fidelity of implementation and identify early outcomes of CBME implementation using Rapid Evaluation to facilitate transformative change. METHOD: Case-study methodology was used to explore the lived experience of implementing CBME in the emergency medicine postgraduate program at Queen's University, Canada, using iterative cycles of Rapid Evaluation in 2017-2018. After the intended implementation was explicitly described, stakeholder focus groups and interviews were conducted at 3 and 9 months post-implementation to evaluate the fidelity of implementation and early outcomes. Analyses were abductive, using the CBME core components framework and data-driven approaches to understand stakeholders' experiences. RESULTS: In comparing planned with enacted implementation, important themes emerged with resultant opportunities for adaption. For example, lack of a shared mental model resulted in frontline difficulty with assessment and feedback and a concern that the granularity of competency-focused assessment may result in "missing the forest for the trees," prompting the return of global assessment. Resident engagement in personal learning plans was not uniformly adopted, and learning experiences tailored to residents' needs were slow to follow. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid Evaluation provided critical insights into the successes and challenges of operationalizing CBME. Implementing the practical components of CBME was perceived as a sprint, while realizing the principles of CBME and changing culture in postgraduate training was a marathon requiring sustained effort in the form of frequent evaluation and continuous faculty and resident development.

Competency-based education calls for programmatic assessment: But what does this look like in practice?

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Programmatic assessment has been identified as a system-oriented approach to achieving the multiple purposes for assessment within Competency-Based Medical Education (CBME, i.e., formative, summative, and program improvement). While there are well-established principles for designing and evaluating programs of assessment, few studies illustrate and critically interpret, what a system of programmatic assessment looks like in practice. This study aims to use systems thinking and the 'two communities' metaphor to interpret a model of programmatic assessment and to identify challenges and opportunities with operationalization. METHOD: An interpretive case study was used to investigate how programmatic assessment is being operationalized within one competency-based residency program at a Canadian university. Qualitative data were collected from residents, faculty, and program leadership via semi-structured group and individual interviews conducted at nine months post-CBME implementation. Data were analyzed using a combination of data-based inductive analysis and theory-derived deductive analysis. RESULTS: In this model, Academic Advisors had a central role in brokering assessment data between communities responsible for producing and using residents' performance information for decision making (i.e., formative, summative/evaluative, and program improvement). As system intermediaries, Academic Advisors were in a privileged position to see how the parts of the assessment system contributed to the functioning of the whole and could identify which system components were not functioning as intended. Challenges were identified with the documentation of residents' performance information (i.e., system inputs); use of low-stakes formative assessments to inform high-stakes evaluative judgments about the achievement of competence standards; and gaps in feedback mechanisms for closing learning loops. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this research suggest that program stakeholders can benefit from a systems perspective regarding how their assessment practices contribute to the efficacy of the system as a whole. Academic Advisors are well positioned to support educational development efforts focused on overcoming challenges with operationalizing programmatic assessment.

Simulation versus real-world performance: a direct comparison of emergency medicine resident resuscitation entrustment scoring.

BACKGROUND: Simulation is increasingly being used in postgraduate medical education as an opportunity for competency assessment. However, there is limited direct evidence that supports performance in the simulation lab as a surrogate of workplace-based clinical performance for non-procedural tasks such as resuscitation in the emergency department (ED). We sought to directly compare entrustment scoring of resident performance in the simulation environment to clinical performance in the ED. METHODS: The resuscitation assessment tool (RAT) was derived from the previously implemented and studied Queen's simulation assessment tool (QSAT) via a modified expert review process. The RAT uses an anchored global assessment scale to generate an entrustment score and narrative comments. Emergency medicine (EM) residents were assessed using the RAT on cases in simulation-based examinations and in the ED during resuscitation cases from July 2016 to June 2017. Resident mean entrustment scores were compared using Pearson's correlation coefficient to determine the relationship between entrustment in simulation cases and in the ED. Inductive thematic analysis of written commentary was conducted to compare workplace-based with simulation-based feedback. RESULTS: There was a moderate, positive correlation found between mean entrustment scores in the simulated and workplace-based settings, which was statistically significant (r = 0.630, n = 17, p < 0.01). Further, qualitative analysis demonstrated overall management and leadership themes were more common narratives in the workplace, while more specific task-based feedback predominated in the simulation-based assessment. Both workplace-based and simulation-based narratives frequently commented on communication skills. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center study with a limited sample size, assessment of residents using entrustment scoring in simulation settings was demonstrated to have a moderate positive correlation with assessment of resuscitation competence in the workplace. This study suggests that resuscitation performance in simulation settings may be an indicator of competence in the clinical setting. However, multiple factors contribute to this complicated and imperfect relationship. It is imperative to consider narrative comments in supporting the rationale for numerical entrustment scores in both settings and to include both simulation and workplace-based assessment in high-stakes decisions of progression.

The writer's guide to education scholarship in emergency medicine: Systematic reviews and the scholarship of integration (part 4).

OBJECTIVE: Reviews help scholars consolidate evidence and guide their educational practice. However, few papers describe how to effectively publish review papers. We completed a scoping review to develop a set of quality indicators that will assist junior authors to publish reviews and integrative scholarship. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, and Google Scholar were searched for English language articles published between 2012 and January 2016 using the terms review, medical education, how to publish, and emergency medicine. Titles and abstracts were reviewed by two authors and included if they focused on how to publish a review or outlined reporting guidelines of reviews. The articles were reviewed in parallel for calibration, and disagreements were resolved through a consensus. RESULTS: A full text review of the 25 articles was conducted, and 196 recommendations were extracted from 13 articles. A hand search of the included articles' reference lists and expert recommendation found an additional eight articles. These recommendations were thematically analysed into a list of seven themes and 32 items. Additionally, seven evaluation tools and reporting guidelines were found to guide researchers in optimizing their reviews for publication. CONCLUSION: In emergency medicine education, review articles can help synthesize educational research so that educators can engage in evidence-based scholarly teaching. We hope that this work will act as an introduction to those interested in engaging in integrative scholarship by providing them with a guide to key quality markers and important checklists for improving their research.

CAEP 2016 Academic Symposium: A Writer's Guide to Key Steps in Producing Quality Medical Education Scholarship.

A key skill for successful clinician educators is the effective dissemination of scholarly innovations and research. Although there are many ways to disseminate scholarship, the most accepted and rewarded form of educational scholarship is publication in peer-reviewed journals. This paper provides direction for emergency medicine (EM) educators interested in publishing their scholarship via traditional peer-reviewed avenues. It builds upon four literature reviews that aggregated recommendations for writing and publishing high-quality quantitative and qualitative research, innovations, and reviews. Based on the findings from these literature reviews, the recommendations were prioritized for importance and relevance to novice clinician educators by a broad community of medical educators. The top items from the expert vetting process were presented to the 2016 Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) Academic Symposium Consensus Conference on Education Scholarship. This community of EM educators identified the highest yield recommendations for junior medical education scholars. This manuscript elaborates upon the top recommendations identified through this consensus-building process.