The use of virtual nominal groups in healthcare research: An extended scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) is a consensus group method used to synthesize expert opinions. Given the global shift to virtual meetings, the extent to which researchers leveraged virtual platforms is unclear. This scoping review explores the use of the vNGT in healthcare research during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Following the Arksey and O'Malley's framework, eight cross-disciplinary databases were searched (January 2020-July 2022). Research articles that reported all four vNGT stages (idea generation, round robin sharing, clarification, voting) were included. Media Synchronicity Theory informed analysis. Corresponding authors were surveyed for additional information. RESULTS: Of 2,589 citations, 32 references were included. Articles covered healthcare (27/32) and healthcare education (4/32). Platforms used most were Zoom, MS Teams and GoTo but was not reported in 44% of studies. Only 22% commented on the benefits/challenges of moving the NGT virtually. Among authors who responded to our survey (16/32), 80% felt that the vNGT was comparable or superior. CONCLUSIONS: The vNGT provides several advantages such as the inclusion of geographically dispersed participants, scheduling flexibility and cost savings. It is a promising alternative to the traditional in-person meeting, but researchers should carefully describe modifications, potential limitations, and impact on results.

The Ottawa resident observation form for nurses (O-RON): evaluation of an assessment tool's psychometric properties in different specialties.

BACKGROUND: Workplace-based assessment (WBA) used in post-graduate medical education relies on physician supervisors' feedback. However, in a training environment where supervisors are unavailable to assess certain aspects of a resident's performance, nurses are well-positioned to do so. The Ottawa Resident Observation Form for Nurses (O-RON) was developed to capture nurses' assessment of trainee performance and results have demonstrated strong evidence for validity in Orthopedic Surgery. However, different clinical settings may impact a tool's performance. This project studied the use of the O-RON in three different specialties at the University of Ottawa. METHODS: O-RON forms were distributed on Internal Medicine, General Surgery, and Obstetrical wards at the University of Ottawa over nine months. Validity evidence related to quantitative data was collected. Exit interviews with nurse managers were performed and content was thematically analyzed. RESULTS: 179 O-RONs were completed on 30 residents. With four forms per resident, the ORON's reliability was 0.82. Global judgement response and frequency of concerns was correlated (r = 0.627, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the original study, the findings demonstrated strong evidence for validity. However, the number of forms collected was less than expected. Exit interviews identified factors impacting form completion, which included clinical workloads and interprofessional dynamics.

Having a Bad Day Is Not an Option: Learner Perspectives on Learner Handover.

PURPOSE: Learner handover is the sharing of learner-related information between supervisors involved in their education. The practice allows learners to build upon previous assessments and can support the growth-oriented focus of competency-based medical education. However, learner handover also carries the risk of biasing future assessments and breaching learner confidentiality. Little is known about learner handover's educational impact, and what is known is largely informed by faculty and institutional perspectives. The purpose of this study was to explore learner handover from the learner perspective. METHOD: Constructivist grounded theory was used to explore learners' perspectives and beliefs around learner handover. Twenty-nine semistructured interviews were completed with medical students and residents from the University of Ottawa and University of California, San Francisco. Interviews took place between April and December 2020. Using the constant comparative approach, themes were identified through an iterative process. RESULTS: Learners were generally unaware of specific learner handover practices, although most recognized circumstances where both formal and informal handovers may occur. Learners appreciated the potential for learner handover to tailor education, guide entrustment and supervision decisions, and support patient safety, but worried about its potential to bias future assessments and breach confidentiality. Furthermore, learners were concerned that information-sharing may be more akin to gossip rather than focused on their educational needs and feared unfair scrutiny and irreversible long-term career consequences from one shared mediocre performance. Altogether, these concerns fueled an overwhelming pressure to perform. CONCLUSIONS: While learners recognized the rationale for learner handover, they feared the possible inadvertent short- and long-term impact on their training and future careers. Designing policies that support transparency and build awareness around learner handover may mitigate unintended consequences that can threaten learning and the learner-supervisor relationship, ensuring learner handover benefits the learner as intended.

Implicit versus explicit first impressions in performance-based assessment: will raters overcome their first impressions when learner performance changes?

First impressions can influence rater-based judgments but their contribution to rater bias is unclear. Research suggests raters can overcome first impressions in experimental exam contexts with explicit first impressions, but these findings may not generalize to a workplace context with implicit first impressions. The study had two aims. First, to assess if first impressions affect raters' judgments when workplace performance changes. Second, whether explicitly stating these impressions affects subsequent ratings compared to implicitly-formed first impressions. Physician raters viewed six videos where learner performance either changed (Strong to Weak or Weak to Strong) or remained consistent. Raters were assigned two groups. Group one (n = 23, Explicit) made a first impression global rating (FIGR), then scored learners using the Mini-CEX. Group two (n = 22, Implicit) scored learners at the end of the video solely with the Mini-CEX. For the Explicit group, in the Strong to Weak condition, the FIGR (M = 5.94) was higher than the Mini-CEX Global rating (GR) (M = 3.02, p < .001). In the Weak to Strong condition, the FIGR (M = 2.44) was lower than the Mini-CEX GR (M = 3.96 p < .001). There was no difference between the FIGR and the Mini-CEX GR in the consistent condition (M = 6.61, M = 6.65 respectively, p = .84). There were no statistically significant differences in any of the conditions when comparing both groups' Mini-CEX GR. Therefore, raters adjusted their judgments based on the learners' performances. Furthermore, raters who made their first impressions explicit showed similar rater bias to raters who followed a more naturalistic process.

Assessing the utility of a novel entrustment-supervision assessment tool.

BACKGROUND: Work-based assessments (WBAs) are increasingly used to inform decisions about trainee progression. Unfortunately, WBAs often fail to discriminate between trainees of differing abilities and have poor reliability. Entrustment-supervision scales may improve WBA performance, but there is a paucity of literature directly comparing them to traditional WBA tools. METHODS: The Ottawa Emergency Department Shift Observation Tool (O-EDShOT) is a previously published WBA tool employing an entrustment-supervision scale with strong validity evidence. This pre-/post-implementation study compares the performance of the O-EDShOT with that of a traditional WBA tool using norm-based anchors. All assessments completed in 12-month periods before and after implementing the O-EDShOT were collected, and generalisability analysis was conducted with year of training, trainees within year and forms within trainee as nested factors. Secondary analysis included assessor as a factor. RESULTS: A total of 3908 and 3679 assessments were completed by 99 and 116 assessors, for 152 and 138 trainees in the pre- and post-implementation phases respectively. The O-EDShOT generated a wider range of awarded scores than the traditional WBA, and mean scores increased more with increasing level of training (0.32 vs. 0.14 points per year, p = 0.01). A significantly greater proportion of overall score variability was attributable to trainees using the O-EDShOT (59%) compared with the traditional tool (21%, p < 0.001). Assessors contributed less to overall score variability for the O-EDShOT than for the traditional WBA (16% vs. 37%). Moreover, the O-EDShOT required fewer completed assessments than the traditional tool (27 vs. 51) for a reliability of 0.8. CONCLUSION: The O-EDShOT outperformed a traditional norm-referenced WBA in discriminating between trainees and required fewer assessments to generate a reliable estimate of trainee performance. More broadly, this study adds to the body of literature suggesting that entrustment-supervision scales generate more useful and reliable assessments in a variety of clinical settings.

The influence of clinical coaching teams on quality of entrustable professional activity assessments.

Background: Coaching is an important component of workplace-based assessment in competency-based medical education. Longitudinal coaching relationships have been proposed to enhance the trainee-supervisor relationship and promote high-quality assessment. Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the influence of longitudinal coaching relationships on the quality of entrustable professional activity (EPA) assessments. Methods: EPAs (n = 174) completed by emergency medicine (EM) supervisors between July 2020 and June 2021 were extracted and divided into two groups; one group consisted of EPAs completed by supervisors when a longitudinal coaching relationship existed (n = 87) and the other group consisted of EPAs completed by the same supervisors when no coaching relationship existed (n = 87). Three physicians were recruited to rate the EPAs using the Quality of Assessment and Learning (QuAL) score, a previously published measure of EPA quality. An analysis of variance was performed to compare mean QuAL scores between the groups. Linear regression analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between trainee performance (EPA rating) and EPA assessment quality (QuAL score). Results: All raters completed the survey. The mean ± SD QuAL score in the coaching relationship group (3.63 ± 0.91) was higher than the no coaching relationship group (3.51 ± 1.10) but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.40). Supervisor was a significant predictor of QuAL score (p = 0.012) and supervisor alone accounted for 26% of the variability in QuAL scores (R2 = 0.26). There was no significant relationship between trainee performance and EPA assessment quality. Conclusions: The presence of a longitudinal coaching relationship did not influence the quality of EPA assessments.

Development of eConsult reflective learning tools for healthcare providers: a pragmatic mixed methods approach.

BACKGROUND: Electronic consultation (eConsult) programs are crucial components of modern healthcare that facilitate communication between primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists. eConsults between PCPs and specialists. They also provide a unique opportunity to use real-world patient scenarios for reflective learning as part of professional development. However, tools that guide and document learning from eConsults are limited. The purpose of this study was to develop and pilot two eConsult reflective learning tools (RLTs), one for PCPs and one for specialists, for those participating in eConsults. METHODS: We performed a four-phase pragmatic mixed methods study recruiting PCPs and specialists from two public health systems located in two countries: eConsult BASE in Canada and San Francisco Health Network eConsult in the United States. In phase 1, subject matter experts developed preliminary RLTs for PCPs and specialists. During phase 2, a Delphi survey among 20 PCPs and 16 specialists led to consensus on items for each RLT. In phase 3, we conducted cognitive interviews with three PCPs and five specialists as they applied the RLTs on previously completed consults. In phase 4, we piloted the RLTs with eConsult users. RESULTS: The RLTs were perceived to elicit critical reflection among participants regarding their knowledge and practice habits and could be used for quality improvement and continuing professional development. CONCLUSION: PCPs and specialists alike perceived that eConsult systems provided opportunities for self-directed learning wherein they were motivated to investigate topics further through the course of eConsult exchanges. We recommend the RLTs be subject to further evaluation through implementation studies at other sites.

Protocol for an extended scoping review on the use of virtual nominal group technique in research.

INTRODUCTION: Consensus group methods such as the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and Delphi method are commonly used in research to elicit and synthesize expert opinions when evidence is lacking. Traditionally, the NGT involves a face-to-face interaction. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many in-person meetings have moved to online settings. It is unclear to what extent the NGT has been undertaken in virtual settings. The overarching aim of this scoping review is to explore the use of the virtual NGT in research. Our specific objectives are to answer the following questions: To what extent has the NGT been used virtually? What modifications were made to accommodate this online format? What advantages and disadvantages were noted by authors in comparison with the face-to-face mode of the technique? MATERIALS AND METHODS: This scoping review will follow the steps outlined by Arksey and O'Malley and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Several pilot searches were completed to refine inclusion and exclusion criteria. Media Synchronicity Theory will provide a conceptual framework to inform the research, including data extraction and summarizing results. As an additional extension to the literature review, online interviews with corresponding authors will be conducted to gather further information.

Assessment of laparoscopic skills: comparing the reliability of global rating and entrustability tools.

Background: Competence by design (CBD) residency programs increasingly depend on tools that provide reliable assessments, require minimal rater training, and measure progression through the CBD milestones. To assess intraoperative skills, global rating scales and entrustability ratings are commonly used but may require extensive training. The Competency Continuum (CC) is a CBD framework that may be used as an assessment tool to assess laparoscopic skills. The study aimed to compare the CC to two other assessment tools: the Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) and the Zwisch scale. Methods: Four expert surgeons rated thirty laparoscopic cholecystectomy videos. Two raters used the GOALS scale while the remaining two raters used both the Zwisch scale and CC. Each rater received scale-specific training. Descriptive statistics, inter-rater reliabilities (IRR), and Pearson's correlations were calculated for each scale. Results: Significant positive correlations between GOALS and Zwisch (r = 0.75, p < 0.001), CC and GOALS (r = 0.79, p < 0.001), and CC and Zwisch (r = 0.90, p < 0.001) were found. The CC had an inter-rater reliability of 0.74 whereas the GOALS and Zwisch scales had inter-rater reliabilities of 0.44 and 0.43, respectively. Compared to GOALS and Zwisch scales, the CC had the highest inter-rater reliability and required minimal rater training to achieve reliable scores. Conclusion: The CC may be a reliable tool to assess intraoperative laparoscopic skills and provide trainees with formative feedback relevant to the CBD milestones. Further research should collect further validity evidence for the use of the CC as an independent assessment tool.

Contexte: Les programmes de résidence structurés autour de la compétence par conception (CPC) dépendent de plus en plus d'outils qui fournissent des évaluations fiables, nécessitent une formation minimale des évaluateurs et mesurent la progression dans les étapes de la CPC. Pour évaluer les compétences peropératoires, les échelles d'évaluation globale et de confiance sont couramment utilisées mais peuvent nécessiter une formation approfondie. Le Continuum des compétences (CC) est un cadre de la CPC qui peut être utilisé comme outil d'évaluation des compétences laparoscopiques. L'étude visait à comparer le CC à deux autres outils d'évaluation : l'évaluation globale opératoire des compétences laparoscopiques (GOALS) et l'échelle de Zwisch. Méthodes: Quatre chirurgiens experts ont évalué trente vidéos de cholécystectomie laparoscopique. Deux évaluateurs ont utilisé l'échelle GOALS tandis que les deux autres ont utilisé l'échelle Zwisch et le CC. Chacun d'eux avait reçu une formation spécifique à l'échelle utilisée. Des statistiques descriptives, la fiabilité inter-évaluateurs (FIÉ) et des corrélations de Pearson ont été calculées pour chaque échelle. Résultats: Des corrélations positives significatives ont été trouvées entre les échelles GOALS et Zwisch (r=0.75, p<0.001), CC et GOALS (r=0.79, p<0.001), et CC et Zwisch (r=0.90, p<0.001). Le CC avait une fiabilité inter-évaluateurs de 0,74 tandis que les échelles GOALS et Zwisch avaient des fiabilités inter-évaluateurs de 0,44 et 0,43, respectivement. Par rapport aux échelles GOALS et Zwisch, le CC avait la fiabilité inter-évaluateurs la plus élevée et ne nécessitait qu'une formation minimale des évaluateurs pour obtenir des scores fiables. Conclusion: Le CC constituerait un outil fiable pour évaluer les compétences laparoscopiques peropératoires et pour fournir aux stagiaires une rétroaction formatrice pertinente pour les étapes de la CPC. Des recherches supplémentaires devraient être entreprises pour recueillir plus de preuves de validité pour l'utilisation du CC comme outil d'évaluation indépendant.

A virtual rural medicine self-learning module for preclerkship students.

Implication Statement All Ontario medical schools have a mandatory preclerkship rural placement. Despite these mandatory placements, there is a lack of Canadian rural medicine pre-departure training for students. We describe a virtual self-learning module (SLM) aimed to enhance medical students' abilities to provide compassionate care during their rural medicine placements. This SLM improves students' knowledge about rural health issues while also encouraging exploration of rural career options. Better preparation for a rural medicine placement may lead to an improved experience and eventually an increase in the number of students pursuing rural medicine careers.

Énoncé des implications de la rechercheLe stage de pré-externat en milieu rural est obligatoire dans toutes les facultés de médecine de l'Ontario. En dépit de ces stages obligatoires, la formation que les étudiants reçoivent pour les y préparer avant leur départ est insuffisante. Nous décrivons un module virtuel d'auto-apprentissage visant à améliorer l'aptitude des étudiants à offrir des soins avec compassion dans le cadre de leurs stages en médecine rurale. Ce module enrichit leurs connaissances sur les enjeux de la santé en milieu rural au Canada tout en les encourageant à explorer les possibilités de carrière dans ce milieu. Une meilleure préparation peut améliorer la qualité de l'expérience de stage et entraîner à terme une augmentation du nombre d'étudiants qui choisiront de poursuivre une carrière en médecine rurale.

Does direct observation influence the quality of workplace-based assessment documentation?

Background: A key component of competency-based medical education (CBME) is direct observation of trainees. Direct observation has been emphasized as integral to workplace-based assessment (WBA) yet previously identified challenges may limit its successful implementation. Given these challenges, it is imperative to fully understand the value of direct observation within a CBME program of assessment. Specifically, it is not known whether the quality of WBA documentation is influenced by observation type (direct or indirect). Methods: The objective of this study was to determine the influence of observation type (direct or indirect) on quality of entrustable professional activity (EPA) assessment documentation within a CBME program. EPA assessments were scored by four raters using the Quality of Assessment for Learning (QuAL) instrument, a previously published three-item quantitative measure of the quality of written comments associated with a single clinical performance score. An analysis of variance was performed to compare mean QuAL scores among the direct and indirect observation groups. The reliability of the QuAL instrument for EPA assessments was calculated using a generalizability analysis. Results: A total of 244 EPA assessments (122 direct observation, 122 indirect observation) were rated for quality using the QuAL instrument. No difference in mean QuAL score was identified between the direct and indirect observation groups (p = 0.17). The reliability of the QuAL instrument for EPA assessments was 0.84. Conclusions: Observation type (direct or indirect) did not influence the quality of EPA assessment documentation. This finding raises the question of how direct and indirect observation truly differ and the implications for meta-raters such as competence committees responsible for making judgments related to trainee promotion.

eConsult Specialist Quality of Response (eSQUARE): A novel tool to measure specialist correspondence via electronic consultation.

High-quality correspondence between healthcare providers is critical for effective patient care. We developed an assessment tool to measure the quality of specialist correspondence to primary care providers (PCPs) via electronic consultation (eConsult), where specialists provide advice without specialist-patient interactions. We incorporated fourteen previously described features of high-quality eConsult correspondence into an assessment tool named the eConsult Specialist Quality of Response (eSQUARE). Six PCPs and two specialists applied the 10-item eSQUARE tool to 30 eConsults of varying quality as informed by PCP survey data. Content, response process, and internal structure validity evidence was gathered. Psychometric properties were calculated using descriptive statistics and generalizability analyses. Mean total score for low-quality eConsults (M = 24 ± 5.6) was significantly lower than moderate-quality eConsults (M = 38 ± 4.7; p<0.001) which was significantly lower than high-quality eConsults (M = 46 ± 3.0; p = 0.002). Reliability measures were high, including generalizability coefficient (0.96), inter-item (≥0.55) and item-total correlations (≥0.68). A decision study demonstrated that a single rater was adequate to achieve a reliability measure of ≥0.70. This study demonstrates initial validity evidence including multiple reliability measures for the eSQUARE. A single rater is adequate to achieve reliability measures for formative feedback. Future studies can apply the eSQUARE when planning educational initiatives aiming to improve specialist-to-PCP correspondence via eConsult.

The impact of local health professions education grants: is it worth the investment?

BACKGROUND: Local grants programs are important since funding for medical education research is limited. Understanding which factors predict successful outcomes is highly relevant to administrators. The purpose of this project was to identify factors that contribute to the publication of local medical education grants in a Canadian context. METHODS: Surveys were distributed to previous Department of Innovation in Medical Education (DIME) and Department of Medicine (DOM) grant recipients (n = 115) to gather information pertaining to PI demographics and research outcomes. A backward logistic regression was used to determine the effects several variables on publication success. RESULTS: The overall publication rate was 64/115 (56%). Due to missing data, 91 grants were included in the logistic regression. Variables associated with a higher rate of publication; cross departmental compared to single department OR = 2.82 (p = 0.04), being presented OR = 3.30 (p = 0.01), and multiple grant acquisition OR = 3.85 (p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Although preliminary, our data suggest that increasing research publications from local grants may be facilitated by pooling funds across departments, making research presentations mandatory, and allowing successful researchers to re-apply.

OBJECTIF: Les programmes de subventions locales sont importants car le financement de la recherche en éducation médicale est limité. Il est très important pour les administrateurs de comprendre quels sont les facteurs de réussite. Le but de ce projet était d'identifier les facteurs qui, dans le contexte canadien, contribuent à la publication d'articles à l'aide de subventions locales pour l'éducation médicale. MÉTHODES: Un sondage a été réalisé auprès des anciens récipidendaires de subventions du Department of Innovation in Medical Education (DIME) et du Department of Medicine (DOM) (n=115) afin de recueillir des informations relatives à la démographie des chercheurs principaux et aux résultats de la recherche. Une régression logistique descendante a été utilisée pour déterminer les effets de plusieurs variables sur le succès des publications. RÉSULTATS: Le taux de publication global était de 64/115 (56 %). En raison de données manquantes, 91 subventions ont été incluses dans la régression logistique. Variables associées à un taux de publication plus élevé; OR inter-départements comparé à un seul département = 2,82 (p = 0,04), soumis OR = 3,30 (p = 0,01) et OR l''obtention de plusieurs subventions = 3,85 (p = 0,005). CONCLUSION: Bien que préliminaires, nos données suggèrent que la publication de recherches à l'aide de subventions locales pourrait être facilitée en regroupant les fonds des divers départements, en rendant la présentation de recherches obligatoire et en permettant aux chercheurs dont l'article a été retenu de faire une nouvelle soumission.

The Ottawa Resident Observation Form for Nurses (O-RON): Assessment of Resident Performance through the Eyes of the Nurses.

OBJECTIVE: Most work-place based assessment relies on physician supervisors making observations of residents. Many areas of performance are not directly observed by physicians but rather by other healthcare professionals, most often nurses. Assessment of resident performance by nurses is captured with multi-source feedback tools. However, these tools combine the assessments of nurses with other healthcare professionals and so their perspective can be lost. A novel tool was developed and implemented to assess resident performance on a hospital ward from the perspective of the nurses. DESIGN: Through a nominal group technique, nurses identified dimensions of performance that are reflective of high-quality physician performance on a hospital ward. These were included as items in the Ottawa Resident Observation Form for Nurses (O-RON). The O-RON was voluntarily completed during an 11-month period. Validity evidence related to quantitative and qualitative data was collected. SETTING: The Orthopedic Surgery Residency Program at the University of Ottawa. PARTICIPANTS: 49 nurses on the Orthopedic Surgery wards at The Ottawa Hospital (tertiary care). RESULTS: The O-RON has 15 items rated on a 3-point frequency scale, one global judgment yes/no question regarding whether they would want the resident on their team and a space for comments. 1079 O-RONs were completed on 38 residents. There was an association between the response to the global judgment question and the frequency of concerns (p < 0.01). With 8 forms per resident, the reliability of the O-RON was 0.80. Open-ended responses referred to aspects of interpersonal skills, responsiveness, dependability, communication skills, and knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: The O-RON demonstrates promise as a work-place based assessment tool to provide residents and training programs with feedback on aspects of their performance on a hospital ward through the eyes of the nurses. It appears to be easy to use, has solid evidence for validity and can provide reliable data with a small number of completed forms.

Teaching and assessing intra-operative consultations in competency-based medical education: development of a workplace-based assessment instrument.

Competency-based medical education (CBME) is being implemented worldwide. In CMBE, residency training is designed around competencies required for unsupervised practice and use entrustable professional activities (EPAs) as workplace "units of assessment". Well-designed workplace-based assessment (WBA) tools are required to document competence of trainees in authentic clinical environments. In this study, we developed a WBA instrument to assess residents' performance of intra-operative pathology consultations and conducted a validity investigation. The entrustment-aligned pathology assessment instrument for intra-operative consultations (EPA-IC) was developed through a national iterative consultation and used clinical supervisors to assess residents' performance at an anatomical pathology program. Psychometric analyses and focus groups were conducted to explore the sources of evidence using modern validity theory: content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences of assessment. The content was considered appropriate, the assessment was feasible and acceptable by residents and supervisors, and it had a positive educational impact by improving performance of intra-operative consultations and feedback to learners. The results had low reliability, which seemed to be related to assessment biases, and supervisors were reluctant to fully entrust trainees due to cultural issues. With CBME implementation, new workplace-based assessment tools are needed in pathology. In this study, we showcased the development of the first instrument for assessing resident's performance of a prototypical entrustable professional activity in pathology using modern education principles and validity theory.

The Impact of Surgeon Experience on Script Concordance Test Scoring.

OBJECTIVE: The Script Concordance Test (SCT) is a test of clinical decision-making that relies on an expert panel to create its scoring key. Existing literature demonstrates the value of specialty-specific experts, but the effect of experience among the expert panel is unknown. The purpose of this study was to explore the role of surgeon experience in SCT scoring. DESIGN: An SCT was administered to 29 general surgery residents and 14 staff surgeons. Staff surgeons were stratified as either junior or senior experts based on years since completing residency training (<15 versus >25 years). The SCT was scored using the full expert panel, the senior panel, the junior panel, and a subgroup junior panel in practice <5 years. A one-way ANOVA was used to compare the scores of first (R1) and fifth (R5) year residents using each scoring scheme. Cognitive interviews were analyzed for differences between junior and senior expert panelist responses. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the mean score of six R1s and five R5s using the full expert panel (R1 69.08 versus R5 67.06, F1,9 = 0.10, P = 0.76), the junior panel (R1 66.73 versus R5 62.50, F1,9 = 0.35, P = 0.57), or the subgroup panel in practice <5 years (R1 61.07 versus R5 58.79, F1,9 = 0.18, P = 0.75). However, the average score of R1s was significantly lower than R5s when using the senior faculty panel (R1 52.04 versus R5 63.26, F1,9 = 26.90, P = 0.001). Cognitive interview data suggests that some responses of junior experts demonstrate less confidence than those of senior experts. CONCLUSIONS: SCT scores are significantly affected by the responses of the expert panel. Expert differences between first and fifth year residents were only demonstrated when using an expert panel consisting of senior faculty members. Confidence may play a role in the response selections of junior experts. When constructing an SCT expert panel, consideration must be given to the experience of panel members.

Are raters influenced by prior information about a learner? A review of assimilation and contrast effects in assessment.

Understanding which factors can impact rater judgments in assessments is important to ensure quality ratings. One such factor is whether prior performance information (PPI) about learners influences subsequent decision making. The information can be acquired directly, when the rater sees the same learner, or different learners over multiple performances, or indirectly, when the rater is provided with external information about the same learner prior to rating a performance (i.e., learner handover). The purpose of this narrative review was to summarize and highlight key concepts from multiple disciplines regarding the influence of PPI on subsequent ratings, discuss implications for assessment and provide a common conceptualization to inform research. Key findings include (a) assimilation (rater judgments are biased towards the PPI) occurs with indirect PPI and contrast (rater judgments are biased away from the PPI) with direct PPI; (b) negative PPI appears to have a greater effect than positive PPI; (c) when viewing multiple performances, context effects of indirect PPI appear to diminish over time; and (d) context effects may occur with any level of target performance. Furthermore, some raters are not susceptible to context effects, but it is unclear what factors are predictive. Rater expertise and training do not consistently reduce effects. Making raters more accountable, providing specific standards and reducing rater cognitive load may reduce context effects. Theoretical explanations for these findings will be discussed.

How do cognitive processes influence script concordance test responses?

INTRODUCTION: The script concordance test (SCT) is a test of clinical decision-making (CDM) that compares the thought process of learners to that of experts to determine to what extent their cognitive 'scripts' align. Without understanding test-takers' cognitive process, however, it is unclear what influences their responses. The objective of this study was to gather response process validity evidence by studying the cognitive process of test-takers to determine whether the SCT tests CDM and what cognitive processes may influence SCT responses. METHODS: Cases from an SCT used in a national validation study were administered and semi-structured cognitive interviews were conducted with ten residents and five staff surgeons. A retrospective verbal probing technique was used. Data was independently analysed and coded by two analysts. Themes were identified as factors that influence SCT responses during the cognitive interview. RESULTS: Cognitive interviews demonstrated variability in CDM among test-takers. Consistent with dual process theory, test-takers relied on scripts formed through past experiences, when available, to make decisions and used conscious deliberation in the absence of experience. However, test-takers' response process was also influenced by their comprehension of specific terms, desire for additional information, disagreement with the planned management, underlying knowledge gaps and desire to demonstrate confidence or humility. CONCLUSION: The rationale behind SCT answers may be influenced by comprehension, underlying knowledge and social desirability in addition to formed scripts and/or conscious deliberation. Having test-takers verbalise their rationale for responses provides a depth of assessment that is otherwise lost in the SCT's current format. With the improved ability to standardise CDM assessment using the SCT, consideration of test-makers improving the SCT construction process and combining the SCT question format with verbal responses may improve the use of the SCT for CDM assessment.

How biased are you? The effect of prior performance information on attending physician ratings and implications for learner handover.

Learner handover (LH), the process of sharing of information about learners between faculty supervisors, allows for longitudinal assessment fundamental in the competency-based education model. However, the potential to bias future assessments has been raised as a concern. The purpose of this study is to determine whether prior performance information such as LH influences the assessment of learners in the clinical context. Between December 2017 and June 2018, forty-two faculty members and final-year residents from the Department of Medicine at the University of Ottawa were assigned to one of three study groups through quasi-randomisation, taking into account gender, speciality and rater experience. In a counter-balanced design, each group received either positive, negative or no LH prior to watching six simulated learner-patient encounter videos. Participants rated each video using the mini-CEX and completed a questionnaire on the raters' general impressions of LH. A significant difference in the mean mini-CEX competency scale scores between the negative (M = 5.29) and positive (M = 5.97) LH groups (P < .001, d = 0.81) was noted. Similar findings were found for the single overall clinical competence ratings. In the post-study questionnaire, 22/28 (78%) of participants had correctly deduced the purpose of the study and 14/28 (50%) felt LH did not influence their assessment. LH influenced mini-CEX scores despite raters' awareness of the potential for bias. These results suggest that LH could influence a rater's performance assessment and careful consideration of the potential implications of LH is required.

Will I publish this abstract? Determining the characteristics of medical education oral abstracts linked to publication.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have shown that most conference submissions fail to be published. Understanding factors that facilitate publication may be of benefit to authors. Using data from the Canadian Conference on Medical Education (CCME), our goal was to identify characteristics of conference submissions that predict the likelihood of publication with a specific focus on the utility of peer-review ratings. METHODS: Study characteristics (scholarship type, methodology, population, sites, institutions) from all oral abstracts from 2011-2015 and peer-review ratings for 2014-2015 were extracted by two raters. Publication data was obtained using online database searches. The impact of variables on publication success was analyzed using logistic regressions. RESULTS: In total, 953 oral abstracts were reviewed from 2011 to 2015. Overall, the publication rate was 30.5% (291/953). Of 531 abstracts with peer-review ratings, between 2014 and 2015, 162 (31%) were published. Of the nine analyzed variables, those associated with a greater odds of publication were: multiple vs. single institutions (odds ratio (OR) = 1.72), post-graduate research vs. others (OR=1.81) and peer-review ratings (OR=1.60). Factors with decreased odds of publication were curriculum development (OR=0.17) and innovation vs. others (OR=0.22). CONCLUSION: Similar to other studies, the publication rate of CCME presentations is low. However, peer ratings were predictive of publication success suggesting that ratings could be a useful form of feedback to authors.

CONTEXTE: Des études ont montré que la plupart des résumés soumis pour présentations orales ne sont pas ultérieurement publiés. Il pourrait être utile aux auteurs de comprendre les facteurs qui favorisent la publication. À l'aide de données provenant de la Conférence canadienne sur l'éducation médicale (CCÉM), notre objectif était d'identifier les caractéristiques des résumés permettant de prédire les chances de publication et en particulier l'utilité des cotes attribuées par les réviseurs. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Les caractéristiques des études (type de projet d'érudition, méthodologie, population, établissements, institutions) de tous les résumés de présentation orale soumis pour les conférences de 2011 à 2015 et les cotes attribuées par les réviseurs entre 2014 et 2015 ont été extraites par deux évaluateurs. On a obtenu des données de publication en faisant des recherches dans des bases de données en ligne. L'effet des variables sur le potentiel de publication a été examiné à l'aide de régressions logistiques. RÉSULTATS: Au total, 953 résumés ont été révisé des années 2011 à 2015. Le taux de publication était de 30.5% (291/953) en somme. Des 531 résumés ayant été évalués des pairs, entre 2014 et 2015, 162 (31 %) ont été publiés. Parmi les neuf variables analysées, celles qui ont été associées à un nombre élevé de chances de publication étaient les suivantes : projet multi-institutionnel par rapport à institution unique (risque relatif (RR) = 1,72), travaux de recherche post-graduée par rapport à d'autres types (RR = 1,81) et présence de cotes attribuées par les réviseurs (RR = 1,6). Les facteurs associés à des moindres chances de publication étaient les suivants : articles portant sur le développement de cursus (RR = 0,17) et les innovations, par rapport à d'autres (RR = 0,22). CONCLUSION: Comme ce fut le cas pour d'autres études, le taux de publication à la suite d'une présentation au CCME est faible. Cependant, les cotes attribuées par les réviseurs permettaient de prédire les chances de publication ce qui semble indiquer que les cotes pourraient constituer une forme de rétroaction utile aux auteurs.