Problem representation and diagnostic accuracy during an OSCE.

PURPOSE: The National Academy of Medicine has called for "identifying opportunities to improve the diagnostic process". We studied the association between problem representation and diagnostic accuracy during an objective structured clinical exam (OSCE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a non-randomized controlled trial during a ten-case OSCE. We measured whether a summary statement prompt increased the likelihood that the student listed the correct diagnosis and whether better summary statements were correlated with diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: 114 students provided 1135 responses. The non-prompted control group yielded 631 responses, listing the correct diagnosis first 73% of the time and within the top three slots 85% of the time. The intervention group exposed to the prompt yielded 453 responses listing the correct diagnosis first 72% of the time (P = 0.617) and within the top three slots 84% of the time (P = 0.760). Summary statements were scored on a 0, 0.5, or 1 rubric. When grouped according to summary statement score, students listed the correct diagnosis first 74%, 70%, and 72% of the time respectively (P = 0.666). The correct diagnosis was included within the top three slots 88%, 82%, and 83% of the time (P = 0.238). CONCLUSIONS: Prompting students to form a summary statement did not improve diagnostic accuracy. Better summary statements were not correlated with diagnostic accuracy.

The revised Approved Instructional Resources score: An improved quality evaluation tool for online educational resources.

BACKGROUND: Free Open-Access Medical education (FOAM) use among residents continues to rise. However, it often lacks quality assurance processes and residents receive little guidance on quality assessment. The Academic Life in Emergency Medicine Approved Instructional Resources tool (AAT) was created for FOAM appraisal by and for expert educators and has demonstrated validity in this context. It has yet to be evaluated in other populations. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the AAT's usability in a diverse population of practicing emergency medicine (EM) physicians, residents, and medical students; solicited feedback; and developed a revised tool. METHODS: As part of the Medical Education Translational Resources: Impact and Quality (METRIQ) study, we recruited medical students, EM residents, and EM attendings to evaluate five FOAM posts with the AAT and provide quantitative and qualitative feedback via an online survey. Two independent analysts performed a qualitative thematic analysis with discrepancies resolved through discussion and negotiated consensus. This analysis informed development of an initial revised AAT, which was then further refined after pilot testing among the author group. The final tool was reassessed for reliability. RESULTS: Of 330 recruited international participants, 309 completed all ratings. The Best Evidence in Emergency Medicine (BEEM) score was the component most frequently reported as difficult to use. Several themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: for ease of use-understandable, logically structured, concise, and aligned with educational value. Limitations include deviation from questionnaire best practices, validity concerns, and challenges assessing evidence-based medicine. Themes supporting its use include evaluative utility and usability. The author group pilot tested the initial revised AAT, revealing a total score average measure intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of moderate reliability (ICC = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0 to 0.962). The final AAT's average measure ICC was 0.88 (95% CI = 0.77 to 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: We developed the final revised AAT from usability feedback. The new score has significantly increased usability, but will need to be reassessed for reliability in a broad population.