Consensus group methods are widely used in research to identify and measure areas where incomplete evidence exists for decision-making. Despite their widespread use, these methods are often inconsistently used and reported. Using examples from the three most commonly used methods, the Delphi, Nominal Group and RAND/UCLA; this paper and associated Guide aim to describe these methods and to highlight common weaknesses in methodology and reporting. The paper outlines a series of recommendations to assist researchers using consensus group methods in providing a comprehensive description and justification of the steps taken in their study.

Consensus methods are poorly standardized and inconsistently used in medical education research. Improved criteria for reporting are needed.

No abstract

Background: The need to incorporate tools to promote medical student wellness in medical education is underscored by the concerning rates of psychological distress among them. The objective of this prospective cohort study was to obtain preliminary data on the feasibility and effectiveness of an online mindfulness intervention for medical student wellness.Methods: A convenience sample of 52 medical students consented to participate in this study. Feasibility was assessed by ease of recruitment, number of modules completed, satisfaction with the program, and adherence to a regular meditation practice. Participants completed the Maslach Burnout Inventory, the Jefferson Scale of Empathy-medical student version, the Five Face of Mindfulness Questionnaire-short form, and the Self Compassion Scale-short form pre and post intervention.Results: The convenience sample was recruited within a two-month period. Forty-five participants completed at least one of seven modules. Descriptive statistics (mean±standard deviation) revealed that the mean number of modules completed was 4.85±2.7. Mean satisfaction with the modules was 7.07±1.1 out of 10. Adherence to a regular formal meditation practice was poor; the average amount of formal meditation practice per module was 34.14±27.44 minutes. Self-compassion and the “observe and describe” facets of mindfulness practice significantly statistically increased from baseline, but no such change was observed for levels of burnout and empathy.Conclusion: The present study indicates that an online mindfulness meditation program may be of interest to medical students. The results did not provide any evidence that the program was effective but we believe further research and development is warranted.

No abstract

Context Competency‐based assessment of learners may benefit from a more holistic, inclusive, approach for determining readiness for unsupervised practice. However, despite movements towards greater patient partnership in health care generally, inclusion of patients in postgraduate medical learners' assessment is largely absent. Methods We conducted a scoping review to map the nature, extent and range of literature examining the inclusion (or exclusion) of patients within the assessment of postgraduate medical learners. Guided by Arskey and O'Malley's framework and informed by Levac et al. and Thomas et al., we searched two databases (MEDLINE® and Embase®) from inception until February 2021 using subheadings related to assessment, patients and postgraduate learners. Data analysis examined characteristics regarding the nature and factor influencing patient involvement in assessment. Results We identified 41 papers spanning four decades. Some literature suggests patients are willing to be engaged in assessment, however choose not to engage when, for example, language barriers may exist. When stratified by specialty or clinical setting, the influence of factors such as gender, race, ethnicity or medical condition seems to remain consistent. Patients may participate in assessment as a stand‐alone group or part of a multi‐source feedback process. Patients generally provided high ratings but commented on the observed professional behaviours and communication skills in comparison with physicians who focused on medical expertise. Conclusion Factors that influence patient involvement in assessment are multifactorial including patients' willingness themselves, language and reading‐comprehension challenges and available resources for training programmes to facilitate the integration of patient assessments. These barriers however are not insurmountable. While understudied, research examining patient involvement in assessment is increasing; however, our review suggests that the extent which the unique insights will be taken up in postgraduate medical education may be dependent on assessment systems readiness and, in particular, physician readiness to partner with patients in this way.

Background: Antiphospholipid syndrome is associated with recurrent pregnancy loss. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and/or aspirin (ASA) prophylaxis during pregnancy to prevent future loss is based on limited trial data with mixed results. Objectives: Given the clinical equipoise, we sought to understand how patients and physicians navigate the decision-making process for use of LMWH and/or ASA in pregnancy. Methods: We interviewed 10 patients and 10 thrombosis physicians in Ottawa, Canada from January 2017-March 2018. Patients who met the revised Sapporo/Sydney laboratory criteria with 1 late pregnancy loss or 2 early losses were identified in a Thrombosis Clinic or excluded patients from the TIPPS Study screening logs. Data collection and analysis occurred iteratively, in keeping with constructivist grounded theory methodology. Results: Our analysis generated three themes, present across both patient and physician interviews, which captured a patient-led decision-making experience: (1) Managing High Stakes, (2) Accepting Uncertainty, and (3) Focusing on Safety. Patients and physicians acknowledged the high emotional burden and what was at stake: avoiding further pregnancy loss. Patients responded to their situation by taking action (i.e. using LMWH injections became a “ritual”), whereas physicians reacted by removing themselves from the final decision by “[leaving] it up to the patient”. Conclusions: Our findings should be considered when designing future research on studying the role for LMWH/ASA in this population, as it suggests that the perceived benefits of treatment go beyond improving pregnancy rates. Rather, patients described potential benefit from the process of taking action, even in the absence of a guaranteed good outcome.

Summary.  Background: After a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism (VTE), many patients have residual pulmonary and/or lower limb vascular obstruction following completion of short‐term anticoagulation. Residual vascular obstruction may complicate the diagnosis of recurrent VTE. Whether baseline imaging, conducted after completion of anticoagulation, helps in interpreting diagnostic testing in patients who subsequently have suspected recurrent VTE is unknown. Study design: The REVERSE study is a cohort study whose primary aim was to derive a clinical decision rule to guide the duration of anticoagulation after a first unprovoked VTE. All patients underwent baseline imaging after completing 5–7 months of anticoagulant therapy. We performed a post hoc randomized controlled comparison among 121 patients investigated for a suspected recurrent VTE during follow‐up: the decision on recurrent VTE with or without baseline imaging was made available to two independent adjudicators. Results: The proportion of patients not classifiable for recurrent VTE was statistically significantly higher in the group with no baseline imaging than in the group with baseline imaging: one in five as compared with one in 25. The interobserver agreement between the two adjudicators was better in the group with baseline imaging than in the group with no baseline imaging: κ‐values were 0.78 and 0.54, respectively. Conclusions: In patients with a first unprovoked VTE, baseline imaging at completion of anticoagulant therapy helps in interpreting diagnostic tests performed in cases of suspected recurrent VTE.