ABSTRACT
Purpose In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many educational activities in general surgery residency have shifted to a virtual environment, including the American Board of Surgery (ABS) Certifying Exam. Virtual exams may become the new standard. In response, we developed an evaluation instrument, the ACES-Pro, to assess surgical trainee performance with a focus on examsmanship in virtual oral board examinations. The purpose of this study was two-fold: (1) to assess the utility and validity of the evaluation instrument, and (2) to characterize the unique components of strong examsmanship in the virtual setting, which has distinct challenges when compared to in-person examsmanship. Methods We developed a 15-question evaluation instrument, the ACES-Pro, to assess oral board performance in the virtual environment. Nine attending surgeons viewed four pre-recorded oral board exam scenarios and scored examinees using this instrument. Evaluations were compared to assess for inter-rater reliability. Faculty were also surveyed about their experience using the instrument. Results Pilot evaluators found the ACES-Pro instrument easy to use and felt it appropriately captured key professionalism metrics of oral board exam performance. We found acceptable inter-rater reliability in the domains of verbal communication, non-verbal communication, and effective use of technology (Guttmann's lambda-2 were 0.796, 0.916, and 0.739, respectively). Conclusions The ACES-Pro instrument is an assessment with evidence for validity as understood by Kane's framework to evaluate multiple examsmanship domains in the virtual exam setting. Examinees must consider best practices for virtual examsmanship to perform well in this environment. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44186-023-00107-7.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: A cornerstone of our healthcare system's response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic is widespread testing to facilitate both isolation and early treatment. When patients refuse to undergo coronavirus disease testing, they compromise not only just their own health but also the health of those around them. The primary objective of our review is to identify the most ethical way a given healthcare system may respond to a patient's refusal to undergo coronavirus disease 2019 testing. DATA SOURCES: We apply a systematic approach to a true clinical case scenario to evaluate the ethical merits of four plausible responses to a patient's refusal to undergo coronavirus disease testing. Although our clinical case is anecdotal, it is representative of our experience at our University Tertiary Care Center. DATA EXTRACTION: Each plausible response in the case is rigorously analyzed by examining relevant stakeholders, facts, norms, and ethical weight both with respect to individuals' rights and to the interests of public health. We use the "So Far No Objections" method as the ethical approach of choice because it has been widely used in the Ethics Modules of the Surgical Council on Resident Education Curriculum of the American College of Surgeons. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two ethically viable options may be tailored to individual circumstances depending on the severity of the patient's condition. Although unstable patients must be assumed to be coronavirus disease positive and treated accordingly even in the absence of a test, stable patients who refuse testing may rightfully be asked to seek care elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: Although patient autonomy is a fundamental principle of our society's medical ethic, during a pandemic we must, in the interest of vulnerable and critically ill patients, draw certain limits to obliging the preferences of noncritically ill patients with decisional capacity.