Search

ObjectivesThe national implementation of competency-based medical education (CBME) has prompted an increased interest in identifying and tracking clinical and educational outcomes for emergency medicine training programs. For the 2019 Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) Academic Symposium, we developed recommendations for measuring outcomes in emergency medicine training in the context of CBME to assist educational leaders and systems designers in program evaluation.MethodsWe conducted a three-phase study to generate educational and clinical outcomes for emergency medicine (EM) education in Canada. First, we elicited expert and community perspectives on the best educational and clinical outcomes through a structured consultation process using a targeted online survey. We then qualitatively analyzed these responses to generate a list of suggested outcomes. Last, we presented these outcomes to a diverse assembly of educators, trainees, and clinicians at the CAEP Academic Symposium for feedback and endorsement through a voting process.ConclusionAcademic Symposium attendees endorsed the measurement and linkage of CBME educational and clinical outcomes. Twenty-five outcomes (15 educational, 10 clinical) were derived from the qualitative analysis of the survey results and the most important short- and long-term outcomes (both educational and clinical) were identified. These outcomes can be used to help measure the impact of CBME on the practice of Emergency Medicine in Canada to ensure that it meets both trainee and patient needs.

Background Quality of training is determined through programs’ compliance with accreditation standards, often set for a number of years. However, perspectives on quality of training within these standards may differ from the clinicians’ perspectives on quality of training. Knowledge on how standards relate to clinicians’ perspectives on quality of training is currently lacking yet is expected to lead to improved accreditation design. Methods This qualitative study design was based on a case-study research approach. We analyzed accreditation standards and conducted 29 interviews with accreditors, clinical supervisors and trainees across Australia and the Netherlands about the quality and accreditation of specialist medical training programs. The perspectives were coded and either if applicable compared to national accreditation standards of both jurisdictions, or thematized to the way stakeholders encounter accreditation standards in practice. Results There were two evident matches and four mismatches between the perspectives of clinicians and the accreditation standards. The matches are: (1) accreditation is necessary (2) trainees are the best source for quality measures. The mismatches are: (3) fundamental training aspects that accreditation standards do not capture: the balance between training and service provision, and trainee empowerment (4) using standards lack dynamism and (5) quality improvement; driven by standards or intrinsic motivation of healthcare professionals. Conclusion In our Australian and Dutch health education cases accreditation is an accepted phenomenon which may be improved by trainee empowerment, a dynamic updating process of standards and by flexibility in its use.

Internists are required to perform a number of procedures that require mastery of technical and non-technical skills, however, formal assessment of these skills is often lacking. The purpose of this study was to develop, implement, and gather validity evidence for a procedural skills objective structured clinical examination (PS-OSCE) for internal medicine (IM) residents to assess their technical and non-technical skills when performing procedures. Thirty-five first to third-year IM residents participated in a 5-station PS-OSCE, which combined partial task models, standardized patients, and allied health professionals. Formal blueprinting was performed and content experts were used to develop the cases and rating instruments. Examiners underwent a frame-of-reference training session to prepare them for their rater role. Scores were compared by levels of training, experience, and to evaluation data from a non-procedural OSCE (IM-OSCE). Reliability was calculated using Generalizability analyses. Reliabilities for the technical and non-technical scores were 0.68 and 0.76, respectively. Third-year residents scored significantly higher than first-year residents on the technical (73.5 vs. 62.2 %) and non-technical (83.2 vs. 75.1 %) components of the PS-OSCE (p < 0.05). Residents who had performed the procedures more frequently scored higher on three of the five stations (p < 0.05). There was a moderate disattenuated correlation (r = 0.77) between the IM-OSCE and the technical component of the PS-OSCE scores. The PS-OSCE is a feasible method for assessing multiple competencies related to performing procedures and this study provides validity evidence to support its use as an in-training examination.

The purpose of this article is to consolidate some of the key concepts about scholarship in education related to the specialty of anesthesiology. We frame the discussion on two paradigm shifts in medical education, i.e., competency-based education and lifelong learning, and the scholarly approaches to lead these paradigm shifts in anesthesiology.Conventional medical education is being challenged by a shift from time-based education to competency-based education. This potential shift will also create a continuous need to foster a culture of lifelong learning in contrast with the traditional compartmentalized model of undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education. The specialty of anesthesia has the capacity to lead these changes by enhancing scholarship in education locally and nationally. The promotion of scholarship in education necessitates the creation of infrastructure and accountability frameworks to show return on investment. High-quality scholarship in medical education requires a solid rationale and, ultimately, a demonstrable benefit to patient care.Accountability of lifelong learning to established competency frameworks seems inevitable. Anesthesiology is one of only a few specialties that can truly protect faculty from clinical responsibilities in favour of scholarship pursuits. With appropriate support for scholarship in education, anesthesiologists have an opportunity to lead these paradigm shifts.

INTRODUCTION: Anesthesiologists increasingly regard realistic patient simulators as invaluable educational and research tools for the study of human performance. However, their use in the assessment of residents’ performance and competence is controversial. Concerns regarding the reliability, the validity, and the “added value” of simulator-based examinations over traditional examinations have not been adequately addressed (1). The present study investigated the potential for assessing clinical performance of senior anesthesia residents with a simulator as compared with the traditional oral examination.

INTRODUCTION: Critical incident reporting and observational studies have identified nontechnical skills that are vital to successful anesthesia crisis management. Examples of such skills include task management, team working, situation awareness and decision making. These qualities are not necessarily acquired through clinical experience and may need to be specifically taught. This study uses a high fidelity patient simulator to assess the effect of repeated exposure to simulated anesthesia crises on the non-technical skills of anesthesia residents. No published studies have addressed this issue.