No abstract

We propose that a supervisor's perceived responsibility for the ward underlies adjustments between 'hands-on' (i.e. personal ward responsibility) and 'hands-off' (i.e. shared ward responsibility) styles. Our approaches to clinical supervision model combines this responsibility tension with the tension between patient care and teaching to illustrate four supervisory approaches, each with unique priorities influencing entrustment. Given the fluidity in supervision, documenting changes in oversight strategies, rather than absolute levels of entrustment, may be more informative for assessment purposes. Research is needed to determine if there is sufficient association between the supervision provided, the entrustment decision made and the supervisor's trust in a trainee to use these as proxies in assessing a trainee's competence.

ObjectivesThis study sought to establish by expert review a consensus‐based, focused ultrasound curriculum, consisting of a foundational set of focused ultrasound skills that all Canadian medical students would be expected to attain at the end of the medical school program.MethodsAn expert panel of 21 point‐of‐care ultrasound and educational leaders representing 15 of 17 (88%) Canadian medical schools was formed and participated in a modified Delphi consensus method. Experts anonymously rated 195 curricular elements on their appropriateness to include in a medical school curriculum using a 5‐point Likert scale. The group defined consensus as 70% or more experts agreeing to include or exclude an element. We determined a priori that no more than 3 rounds of voting would be performed.ResultsOf the 195 curricular elements considered in the first round of voting, the group reached consensus to include 78 and exclude 24. In the second round, consensus was reached to include 4 and exclude 63 elements. In our final round, with 1 additional item added to the survey, the group reached consensus to include an additional 3 and exclude 8 elements. A total of 85 curricular elements reached consensus to be included, with 95 to be excluded. Sixteen elements did not reach consensus to be included or excluded.ConclusionsBy expert opinion‐based consensus, the Canadian Ultrasound Consensus for Undergraduate Medical Education Group recommends that 85 curricular elements be considered for inclusion for teaching in the Canadian medical school focused ultrasound curricula.

Background Alcohol use disorder (AUD) is one of the leading etiologies for liver cirrhosis and liver transplantation. Few individuals with AUD receive guideline-based care in the form of screening, brief intervention, referral to treatment, or prescription of pharmacotherapy for relapse prevention. We interviewed clinicians across Alberta to assess the current experience and perceived barriers to managing AUD in people who have cirrhosis. The aim of this paper is to summarize these findings to inform the development of an educational intervention. Methods We used a qualitative descriptive approach to explore the experiences of clinicians who care for patients with cirrhosis and AUD in Alberta. We conducted semi-structured interviews directed by an interview guide. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We used an inductive thematic analysis approach whereby transcripts were coded, with codes grouped into larger categories, then themes. Results Sixteen clinicians participated in this study. Many participants acknowledged that they do not use a standardized approach to screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment. Through thematic analysis we identified four themes surrounding barriers to managing AUD in patients with cirrhosis: (i) Practicing within knowledge constraints, (ii) Navigating limited resources and system challenges, (iii) Balancing the complexity of cirrhosis and AUD, and (iv) Acknowledging the influence of provider perceptions on care. Conclusion This article presents the perspectives of clinicians who care for people who have AUD and cirrhosis. Significant barriers exist, including limited knowledge and resources, systemic challenges, and patient complexity. The information gathered will be used to develop an educational intervention that will delve deeper into these issues in order to have the greatest impact on clinicians who routinely interface with this patient population.

Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) are used worldwide for summative examinations but often lack acceptable reliability. Research has shown that reliability of scores increases if OSCE checklists for medical students include only clinically relevant items. Also, checklists are often missing evidence-based items that high-achieving learners are more likely to use. The purpose of this study was to determine if limiting checklist items to clinically discriminating items and/or adding missing evidence-based items improved score reliability in an Internal Medicine residency OSCE. Six internists reviewed the traditional checklists of four OSCE stations classifying items as clinically discriminating or non-discriminating. Two independent reviewers augmented checklists with missing evidence-based items. We used generalizability theory to calculate overall reliability of faculty observer checklist scores from 45 first and second-year residents and predict how many 10-item stations would be required to reach a Phi coefficient of 0.8. Removing clinically non-discriminating items from the traditional checklist did not affect the number of stations (15) required to reach a Phi of 0.8 with 10 items. Focusing the checklist on only evidence-based clinically discriminating items increased test score reliability, needing 11 stations instead of 15 to reach 0.8; adding missing evidence-based clinically discriminating items to the traditional checklist modestly improved reliability (needing 14 instead of 15 stations). Checklists composed of evidence-based clinically discriminating items improved the reliability of checklist scores and reduced the number of stations needed for acceptable reliability. Educators should give preference to evidence-based items over non-evidence-based items when developing OSCE checklists.