Practical Application of Assessment Principles in the Development of an Innovative Clinical Performance Evaluation in the Entrustable Professional Activity Era

Health professionals' education related to people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

People with intellectual and developmental disabilities are among the most underserved in an inequitable healthcare system.

METHODS

Using Arksey and O'Malley's methodology and a social determinants of health framework, we conducted a scoping review of literature on the state of practice in education of healthcare professionals in the health and healthcare needs of this population.

RESULTS

Searches found 4948 articles, with 182 included in the final review. Themes identified included gaps of not being informed by workforce needs, continued use of the medical model of care, not addressing intersectionality with racial/ethnic and other discriminations, and lack of involvement of the population in developing/evaluating programs and promising trends of development of competency-based interprofessional programs with experiential learning.

CONCLUSION

We provide recommendations for best practices in a concerted effort to educate a healthcare workforce equipped with the knowledge and skills to address the health needs of this population.

Simulation-based summative assessment in healthcare: an overview of key principles for practice

BACKGROUND

Healthcare curricula need summative assessments relevant to and representative of clinical situations to best select and train learners. Simulation provides multiple benefits with a growing literature base proving its utility for training in a formative context. Advancing to the next step, "the use of simulation for summative assessment" requires rigorous and evidence-based development because any summative assessment is high stakes for participants, trainers, and programs. The first step of this process is to identify the baseline from which we can start.

METHODS

First, using a modified nominal group technique, a task force of 34 panelists defined topics to clarify the why, how, what, when, and who for using simulation-based summative assessment (SBSA). Second, each topic was explored by a group of panelists based on state-of-the-art literature reviews technique with a snowball method to identify further references. Our goal was to identify current knowledge and potential recommendations for future directions. Results were cross-checked among groups and reviewed by an independent expert committee.

RESULTS

Seven topics were selected by the task force: "What can be assessed in simulation?", "Assessment tools for SBSA", "Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process", "Scenarios for SBSA", "Debriefing, video, and research for SBSA", "Trainers for SBSA", and "Implementation of SBSA in healthcare". Together, these seven explorations provide an overview of what is known and can be done with relative certainty, and what is unknown and probably needs further investigation. Based on this work, we highlighted the trustworthiness of different summative assessment-related conclusions, the remaining important problems and questions, and their consequences for participants and institutions of how SBSA is conducted.

CONCLUSION

Our results identified among the seven topics one area with robust evidence in the literature ("What can be assessed in simulation?"), three areas with evidence that require guidance by expert opinion ("Assessment tools for SBSA", "Scenarios for SBSA", "Implementation of SBSA in healthcare"), and three areas with weak or emerging evidence ("Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process", "Debriefing for SBSA", "Trainers for SBSA"). Using SBSA holds much promise, with increasing demand for this application. Due to the important stakes involved, it must be rigorously conducted and supervised. Guidelines for good practice should be formalized to help with conduct and implementation. We believe this baseline can direct future investigation and the development of guidelines.

Effect of Perceived Level of Interaction on Faculty Evaluations of 3rd Year Medical Students

INTRODUCTION

Several factors are known to affect the way clinical performance evaluations (CPEs) of medical students are completed by supervising physicians. We sought to explore the effect of faculty perceived "level of interaction" (LOI) on these evaluations.

METHODS

Our third-year CPE requires evaluators to identify perceived LOI with each student as low, moderate, or high. We examined CPEs completed during the academic year 2018-2019 for differences in (1) clinical and professionalism ratings, (2) quality of narrative comments, (3) quantity of narrative comments, and (4) percentage of evaluation questions left unrated.

RESULTS

A total of 3682 CPEs were included in the analysis. ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between LOI and clinical ratings (p ≤ .001), with mean ratings from faculty with a high LOI significantly higher than from faculty with a moderate or low LOI (p ≤ .001). Chi-squared analysis demonstrated differences based on faculty LOI and whether questions were left unrated (p ≤ .001), quantity of narrative comments (p ≤ .001), and specificity of narrative comments (p ≤ .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Faculty who perceive higher LOI were more likely to assign that student higher ratings, complete more of the clinical evaluation and were more likely to provide narrative feedback with more specific, higher-quality comments.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-021-01307-w.