BackgroundThe goal of the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in Competency-based Medical Education (CBME) is to establish a minimal level of competence. The purpose of this study was to 1) to determine the credibility and acceptability of the modified Angoff method of standard setting in the setting of CBME, using the Borderline Group (BG) method and the Borderline Regression (BLR) method as a reference standard; 2) to determine if it is feasible to set different standards for junior and senior residents, and 3) to determine the desired characteristics of the judges applying the modified Angoff method.MethodsThe results of a previous OSCE study (21 junior residents, 18 senior residents, and six fellows) were used. Three groups of judges performed the modified Angoff method for both junior and senior residents: 1) sports medicine surgeons, 2) non-sports medicine orthopedic surgeons, and 3) sports fellows. Judges defined a borderline resident as a resident performing at a level between competent and a novice at each station. For each checklist item, the judges answered yes or no for “will the borderline/advanced beginner examinee respond correctly to this item?” The pass mark was calculated by averaging the scores. This pass mark was compared to that created using both the BG and the BLR methods.ResultsA paired t-test showed that all examiner groups expected senior residents to get significantly higher percentage of checklist items correct compared to junior residents (all stations p < 0.001). There were no significant differences due to judge type. For senior residents, there were no significant differences between the cut scores determined by the modified Angoff method and the BG/BLR method. For junior residents, the cut scores determined by the modified Angoff method were lower than the cut scores determined by the BG/BLR Method (all p < 0.01).ConclusionThe results of this study show that the modified Angoff method is an acceptable method of setting different pass marks for senior and junior residents. The use of this method enables both senior and junior residents to sit the same OSCE, preferable in the regular assessment environment of CBME.

The clinical applications of point-of-care ultrasound (US) have expanded rapidly over the past decade. To promote early exposure to point-of-care US, there is widespread support for the integration of US curricula within undergraduate medical education. However, despite growing evidence and enthusiasm for point-of-care US education in undergraduate medical education, the curricular design and delivery across undergraduate medical education programs remain variable without widely adopted national standards and guidelines. This article highlights the educational and teaching applications of point-of-care US with a focus on outcomes. We then review the evidence on curricular design, delivery, and integration and the assessment of competency for point-of-care US in undergraduate medical education.

The MMI provides a reliable way to assess residency candidates that is acceptable to both candidates and assessors across a variety of programs.

In this era of increasing complexity, there is a growing gap between what we need our medical experts to do and the training we provide them. While medical education has a long history of being guided by theories of expertise to inform curriculum design and implementation, the theories that currently underpin our educational programs do not account for the expertise necessary for excellence in the changing health care context. The more comprehensive view of expertise gained by research on both clinical reasoning and adaptive expertise provides a useful framing for re-shaping physician education, placing emphasis on the training of clinicians who will be adaptive experts. That is, have both the ability to apply their extensive knowledge base as well as create new knowledge as dictated by patient needs and context. Three key educational approaches have been shown to foster the development of adaptive expertise: learning that emphasizes understanding, providing students with opportunities to embrace struggle and discovery in their learning, and maximizing variation in the teaching of clinical concepts. There is solid evidence that a commitment to these educational approaches can help medical educators to set trainees on the path towards adaptive expertise.

Objectives: Cognitive forcing strategies (CFS)may reduce error arising from cognitive biases. This is the first experimental test to determine the effect of CFS training in medical students. Methods: Students were allocated to CFS training or control during a 4-week emergency medicine rotation (n = 191). At the end of the rotation examination, students were tested using computer-based cases. Application of CFS could enable reduction of diagnostic error, as evidenced by identifying multiple correct diagnoses for the two cases prone to search satisficing bias (SSB) and uncommon diagnoses for the two cases prone to availability bias (AB). Two “false positive” cases were included to test for possible “oversearching.” Results: There were 145 students in the intervention and 46 in the control group. For the SSB cases, 52% of students with CFS training and 48% in the control group initiated a search for the second diagnosis (χ2 = 0.13, df = 1, p = 0.91). More than half (54%) correctly identified the second diagnosis in the CFS group, and 48% identified it in the control group. The difference was not significant (χ2 = 2.25, df = 1, p = 0.13). For the second diagnosis in the false positive cases, 64% of the CFS group and 77% of the control group incorrectly identified it. There were no significant differences between groups (χ2 = 2.38, df = 1, p = 0.12). In the AB cases, only 45% in each group identified the uncommon correct diagnosis (χ2 = 0.001, df = 1, p = 0.98). Conclusions: The educational interventions suggested by experts in clinical reasoning and employed in our study to teach CFS failed to show any reduction in diagnostic error by novices.

Collaborative learning of clinical skills has demonstrated promising results in the simulated setting. However, further research into how collaborative learning of clinical skills may work in clinical settings, as well as into the role of social dynamics between learners, is required.

No abstract

One way of understanding the integration of basic and clinical science is as a cognitive activity occurring within learners. This perspective suggests that learner-centered, content-focused, and session-level-oriented strategies can achieve cognitive integration.