Near-Peer Teaching in Radiation Oncology: a Proof of Principle Study for Learning Treatment Planning.

Radiotherapy techniques are expanding in range and complexity; therefore, protecting learning environments where residents nurture treatment planning skills is critical. The evidence base for 'near-peer' teaching (NPT), where professionals at a similar career stage assist in each other's learning, is growing in hospital-based disciplines, but has not been reported in radiation oncology. The feasibility of a resident-led teaching programme for developing treatment planning skills was investigated herein with quality improvement (QI) methodology. Following consultation with attendings (n = 10) and all residents (n = 17) at the two cancer centres in the region, a regular NPT session focused on planning skills was initiated at the largest centre, with video-linking to the second centre. Tutorials were case-based and pitched at the level of qualifying examinations. Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were designed based on primary and secondary improvement drivers derived by group consensus among residents, with tutorials adopted accordingly. Participation, content, and satisfaction were monitored for 20 months. Six PDSA cycles reformed the tutorial format, leading to logistical and pedagogical benefits including interprofessional contributions and enhanced interactivity. Tutorials occurred on 85% prescribed occasions (n = 45) during the subsequent 18-month follow-up, with 25 distinct tumour sites featured. Resident participation and satisfaction increased, independent of resident seniority. Tutorials were paused for the first 2 months of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic only. A high-quality and cost-effective regional, trainee-led teaching programme on treatment planning was feasible and cost-effective in this study.

Traditional finals and OSCEs in predicting consultant and self-reported clinical skills of PRHOs: a pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: As we move from standard 'long case' final examinations to new objective structured formats, we need to ensure the new is at least as good as the old. Furthermore, knowledge of which examination format best predicts medical student progression and clinical skills development would be of value. METHODS: A group of medical students sat both the standard long case examination and the new objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) to introduce this latter examination to our Medical School for final MB. At the end of their pre-registration year, the group and their supervising consultants submitted performance evaluation questionnaires. RESULTS: Thirty medical students sat both examinations and 20 returned evaluation questionnaires. Of the 72 consultants approached, 60 (83%) returned completed questionnaires. No correlation existed between self- and consultant reported performance. The traditional finals examination was inversely associated with consultant assessment. Better performing students were not rated as better doctors. The OSCE (and its components) was more consistent and showed positive associations with consultant ratings across the board. DISCUSSION: Major discrepancies exist between the 2 examination formats, in data interpretation and practical skills, which are explicitly tested in OSCEs but less so in traditional finals. Standardised marking schemes may reduce examiner variability and discretion and weaken correlations across the 2 examinations. This pilot provides empirical evidence that OSCEs assess different clinical domains than do traditional finals. Additionally, OSCEs improve prediction of clinical performance as assessed by independent consultants. CONCLUSION: Traditional finals and OSCEs correlate poorly with one another. Objective structured clinical examinations appear to correlate well with consultant assessment at the end of the pre-registration house officer year.

Impact of the ICD-10 Primary Health Care (PHC) diagnostic and management guidelines for mental disorders on detection and outcome in primary care. Cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) ICD-10 Primary Health Care (PHC) Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Mental Disorders (1996) have not been evaluated in a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT). AIMS: To evaluate the effect of local adaptation and dissemination of the guidelines. METHOD: Pragmatic, pair-matched, cluster RCT involving 30 practices. RESULTS: Guideline practices were less sensitive but more specific in identifying morbidity, but these differences were not significant. Guideline patients did not differ from usual-care patients on 12-item General Health Questionnaire scores at 3-month follow-up or in the proportion who were still cases. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Attempts to influence clinician behaviour through a process of adaptation and extension of guidelines are unlikely to change detection rates or outcomes.