Search

Summary: Background: The assessment of clinical competence is critical in medical education. Understanding the effect of general experience on a physician's self‐assessment would help design more effective curricula and evaluations of procedural skills in postgraduate training and continuing professional development (CPD). In this observational study, we assessed the effect of general experience on the correlation between confidence and competence amongst experienced clinicians (ECs) and postgraduate trainees (PGTs) when learning an office‐based procedure in pessary care. Methods: We recruited 19 first‐year family medicine residents and 18 family medicine faculty members in two outpatient academic clinics. All participants attended a simulation‐based workshop for a routine gynaecological office procedure. We used a confidence survey as a measure of the participants' self‐assessed competence and an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) to evaluate participants' competence before and after the workshop. The assessment of clinical competence is critical in medical education Results: We found no significant correlation between confidence and competence at baseline for either group (EC, r = 0.25, p = 0.35; PGT, r = 0.15, p = 0.60). After the workshop, we observed a statistically significant correlation between confidence and competence for ECs (r = 0.60, p = 0.01), but not for PGTs. The change in this correlation was not statistically significant for either group, however. Discussion: Our findings suggest that ECs are not any more accurate in the assessment of their competence compared with PGTs. All procedural skills curricula can benefit from OSCE‐format evaluation to better evaluate the improvement in performance of participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the number of patients under a primary care physician's care (panel size) and primary care quality indicators.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, population-based study of fee-for-service and capitated interprofessional and non-interprofessional primary health care practices in Ontario, Canada between April 2008 and March 2010, encompassing 4,195 physicians with panel sizes ≥1,200 serving 8.3 million patients. Data was extracted from multiple linked, health-related administrative databases and covered 16 quality indicators spanning 5 dimensions of care: access, continuity, comprehensiveness, and evidence-based indicators of cancer screening and chronic disease management.Results: The likelihood of being up-to-date on cervical, colorectal, and breast cancer screening showed relative decreases of 7.9% (P <.001), 5.9% (P = .01), and 4.6% (P <.001), respectively, with increasing panel size (from 1,200 to 3,900). Eight chronic care indicators (4 medication-based and 4 screening-based) showed no significant association with panel size. The likelihood of individuals with a new diagnosis of congestive heart failure having an echocardiogram, however, increased by a relative 8.1% (P <.001) with higher panel size. Increasing panel size was also associated with a 10.8% relative increase in hospitalization rates for ambulatory-care-sensitive conditions (P = .04) and a 10.8% decrease in non-urgent emergency department visits (P = .004). Continuity was highest with medium panel sizes (P <.001), and comprehensiveness had a small decrease (P = .03) with increasing panel size.Conclusions: Increasing panel size was associated with small decreases in cancer screening, continuity, and comprehensiveness, but showed no consistent relationships with chronic disease management or access indicators. We found no panel size threshold above which quality of care suffered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]