Search

Abstract Background Investigation of real incidents has been consistently identified by expert reviews and student surveys as a potentially valuable teaching resource for medical students. The aim of this study was to adapt a published method to measure resident doctors’ reflection on quality improvement and evaluate this as an assessment tool for medical students. Methods The design is a cohort study. Medical students were prepared with a tutorial in team based learning format and an online Managing Incident Review course. The reliability of the modified Mayo Evaluation of Reflection on Improvement tool (mMERIT) was analysed with Generalizability G-theory. Long term sustainability of assessment of incident review with mMERIT was tested over five consecutive years. Results A total of 824 students have completed an incident review using 167 incidents from NHS Tayside’s online reporting system. In order to address the academic practice gap students were supervised by Senior Charge Nurses or Consultants on the wards where the incidents had been reported. Inter-rater reliability was considered sufficiently high to have one assessor for each student report. There was no evidence of a gradient in student marks across the academic year. Marks were significantly higher for students who used Section Questions to structure their reports compared with those who did not. In Year 1 of the study 21 (14%) of 153 mMERIT reports were graded as concern. All 21 of these students achieved the required standard on resubmission. Rates of resubmission were lower (3% to 7%) in subsequent years. Conclusions We have shown that mMERIT has high reliability with one rater. mMERIT can be used by students as part of a suite of feedback to help supplement their self-assessment on their learning needs and develop insightful practice to drive their development of quality, safety and person centred professional practice. Incident review addresses the need for workplace based learning and use of real life examples of mistakes, which has been identified by previous studies of education about patient safety in medical schools.

Abstract Background Increasingly healthcare policies emphasise the importance of person-centred, empathic care. Consequently, healthcare professionals are expected to demonstrate the ‘human’ aspects of care in training and in practice. The Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure is a patient-rated measure of the interpersonal skills of healthcare practitioners. It has been widely validated for use by healthcare professionals in both primary and secondary care. This paper reports on the validity and reliability of the CARE Measure with sexual health nurses. Methods Patient questionnaires were collected for 943 consultations with 20 sexual health nurses. Participating patients self-completed the questionnaire immediately after the encounter with the nurse. The questionnaire included the ten item CARE Measure, the Patient Enablement Index, and overall satisfaction instruments. Construct validity was assessed through Spearman’s correlation and principal component analysis. Internal consistence was assessed through Cronbach’s alpha and the inter-rater reliability through Generalisability Theory. Data were collected in 2013 in Scotland. Results Female patients completed 68% of the questionnaires. The mean patient age was 28.8 years (standard deviation 9.8 years). Two of the 20 participating nurses withdrew from the study. Most patients (71.7%) regarded the CARE Measure items as very important to their consultation and the number of ‘not applicable’ and missing responses’ were low (2.6% and 0.1% respectively). The participating nurses had high CARE Measure scores; out of a maximum possible score of 50, the overall mean CARE measure score was 47.8 (standard deviation 4.4). The scores were moderately correlated with patient enablement (rho = 0.232, p = 0.001) and overall satisfaction (rho = 0.377, p = 0.001. Cronbach’s alpha showed the measure’s high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient = 0.95), but the inter-rater reliability could not be calculated due to the high achieved CARE Measure scores that varied little between nurses. Conclusions Within this clinical context the CARE Measure has high perceived relevance and face validity. The findings support construct validity and some evidence of reliability. The high CARE Measure scores may have been due to sample bias. A future study which ensures a representative sample of patients on a larger group of nurses is required to determine whether the measure can discriminate between nurses.

Background: High-risk primary care prescribing is common and is known to vary considerably between practices, but the extent to which high-risk prescribing varies among individual general practitioners (GPs) is not known. Objectives: To create prescribing safety indicators usable in existing electronic clinical data and to examine (1) variation in high-risk prescribing between patients, GPs and practices including reliability of measurement and (2) changes over time in high-risk prescribing prevalence and variation between practices. Design: Descriptive analysis and multilevel logistic regression modelling of routine data. Setting: UK general practice using routine electronic medical record data. Participants: (1) For analysis of variation and reliability, 398 GPs and 26,539 patients in 38 Scottish practices. (2) For analysis of change in high-risk prescribing, ≈ 300,000 patients particularly vulnerable to adverse drug effects registered with 190 Scottish practices. Main outcome measures: For the analysis of variation between practices and between GPs, five indicators of high-risk non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescribing. For the analysis of change in high-risk prescribing, 19 previously validated indicators. Results: Measurement of high-risk prescribing at GP level was feasible only for newly initiated drugs and for drugs similar to NSAIDs which are usually initiated by GPs. There was moderate variation between practices in total high-risk NSAID prescribing [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.034], but this indicator was highly reliable (> 0.8 for all practices) at distinguishing between practices because of the large number of patients being measured. There was moderate variation in initiation of high-risk NSAID prescribing between practices (ICC 0.055) and larger variation between GPs (ICC 0.166), but measurement did not reliably distinguish between practices and had reliability > 0.7 for only half of the GPs in the study. Between quarter (Q)2 2004 and Q1 2009, the percentage of patients exposed to high-risk prescribing measured by 17 indicators that could be examined over the whole period fell from 8.5% to 5.2%, which was largely driven by reductions in high-risk NSAID and antiplatelet use. Variation between practices increased for five indicators and decreased for five, with no relationship between change in the rate of high-risk prescribing and change in variation between practices. Conclusions: High-risk prescribing is common and varies moderately between practices. High-risk prescribing at GP level cannot be easily measured routinely because of the difficulties in accurately identifying which GP actually prescribed the drug and because drug initiation is often a shared responsibility with specialists. For NSAID initiation, there was approximately three times greater variation between GPs than between practices. Most GPs with above average high-risk prescribing worked in practices which were not themselves above average. The observed reductions in high-risk prescribing between 2004 and 2009 were largely driven by falls in NSAID and antiplatelet prescribing, and there was no relationship between change in rate and change in variation between practices. These results are consistent with improvement interventions in all practices being more appropriate than interventions targeted on practices or GPs with higher than average high-risk prescribing. There is a need for research to understand why high-risk prescribing varies and to design and evaluate interventions to reduce it. Funding: Funding for this study was provided by the Health Services and Delivery Research programme of the National Institute for Health Research.