Schouten, Will M.

Abstract Background: Medical education commonly utilizes the “see one, do one” two-step approach for teaching psychomotor skills; however, recent evidence suggests that Peyton’s four-step method leads to superior learning. The effect of Peyton’s four-step method on long term skill retention is less apparent and has never been assessed for Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS). The purpose of this research project was to evaluate the effectiveness of Peyton’s four-step method on teaching the POCUS psychomotor skills of image acquisition to novice learners. Additionally, this research project assessed the influence of Peyton’s four-step method at three different points in time during the skill acquisition phase, in the setting of ongoing deliberate skill practice. Methods: A single-blinded, repeated measures interventional study based on experimental design was completed. PA students from one large academic medical center were randomized into a control group (using the two-step method) and intervention group (using Peyton’s four-step method). Students were taught POCUS of the aorta, bladder, heart, lungs, and kidneys. Students' POCUS skills were assessed during the immediate, intermediate, and delayed learning phases. At each assessment, an organ-specific score and a total score were obtained. Scores were compared using a Wilcoxon rank sum test. An ordinal logistic regression analysis was performed using a generalized linear mixed model with a multinomial distribution and cumulative logit link function to assess overall effect of Peyton's four-step method. Results: Students who were taught using Peyton’s method were found to have an increased likelihood of higher total scores compared to those taught using usual instruction (OR = 4.2, p = 0.003). Peyton’s method was found to have increased likelihood of higher scores for cardiac (OR = 2.3, p = 0.032), lung (OR = 2.5, p = 0.034), and kidney (OR = 3.0, p = 0.015). Student performance statistically improved with Peyton’s four-step method during the immediate (p = 0.031) and delayed (p = 0.011) skill acquisition phases, but not in the intermediate phase. Conclusion: Peyton’s four-step method improves overall psychomotor skill acquisition for POCUS. Peyton’s four-step method specifically improved psychomotor skills in the immediate skill acquisition phase and the delayed skill acquisition phase. The benefit of Peyton’s four-step method was more prominent in higher complexity POCUS applications.

Abstract Background In the context of competency-based medical education, more research is needed to define point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) competency and validate learner assessment. To address noted gaps in the currently validated assessment instruments, we developed the Observed Structured POCUS Readiness Examination (OSPRE). The purpose of this study is to demonstrate evidence of validity and reliability of the OSPRE in Physician Assistant (PA) students. Methods A prospective cohort study was designed to demonstrate evidence of validity and reliability for the OSPRE instrument at one PA program. Students completed a hands-on skills assessment utilizing a simulated patient scenario involving a traumatic injury. Student performance was assessed in real time by one reviewer and asynchronously by a second reviewer blinded to the scoring of the initial reviewer. Inter-rater reliability was calculated for overall score and for each criterion of the OSPRE. Results Intraclass correlation coefficient for the final percentage score between the independent reviewers utilizing the OSPRE instrument was noted to be 0.86 (95% CI 0.56–0.95, p < 0.001), demonstrating overall good reliability. Level of agreement for inter-rater reliability for the specific individual criterion ranged between fair and substantial. Conclusion The OSPRE instrument provides a valid and reliable assessment of POCUS skills in PA students. When compared to previously validated assessment instruments, scores on the OSPRE had a wider range, suggesting that the OSPRE might have a greater discriminatory value for POCUS skillset.

Background Bedside rounds (BR) have been proposed as an ideal method to promote patient-centred hospital care, but there is substantial variation in their implementation and effects. Our objectives were to describe the implementation of BR in hospital settings and determine their effect on patient-centred outcomes. Methods Data sources included Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus and Ovid Cochrane Central Registry of Clinical Trials from database inception through 28 July 2017. We included experimental studies comparing BR to another form of rounds in a hospital-based setting (ie, medical/surgical unit, intensive care unit (ICU)) and reporting a quantitative patient-reported or objectively measured clinical outcome. We used random effects models to calculate pooled Cohen's d effect size estimates for the patient knowledge and patient experience outcome domains. Results Twenty-nine studies met inclusion criteria, including 20 from adult care (17 non-ICU, 3 ICU), and nine from paediatrics (5 non-ICU, 4 ICU), the majority of which (n=23) were conducted in the USA. Thirteen studies implemented BR with cointerventions as part of a ‘bundle’. Studies most commonly reported outcomes in the domains of patient experience (n=24) and patient knowledge (n=10). We found a small, statistically significant improvement in patient experience with BR (summary Cohen’s d=0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.14, p<0.001, I2=56%), but no significant association between BR and patient knowledge (Cohen’s d=0.21, 95% CI −0.004 to –0.43, p=0.054, I2=92%). Risk of bias was moderate to high, with methodological limitations most often relating to selective reporting, low adherence rates and missing data. Conclusions BR have been implemented in a variety of hospital settings, often ‘bundled’ with cointerventions. However, BR have demonstrated limited effect on patient-centred outcomes.

BACKGROUNDFailures in communication at the time of patient handoff have been implicated as contributing factors to preventable adverse events.OBJECTIVEExamine the relationship between face‐to‐face handoffs and the rate of patient outcomes, including adverse events.DESIGNRetrospective cohort.SETTINGA 1157‐bed academic tertiary referral hospital.PATIENTSThere were 805 adult patients admitted to general internal medicine services.INTERVENTIONRetrospective comparison of clinical outcomes, including the rate of adverse events, of patients whose care was transitioned with and without face‐to‐face handoffs.MEASUREMENTSRapid response team calls, code team calls, transfers to a higher level of care, death in hospital, 30‐day readmission rate, length of stay, and adverse events (as identified using the Global Trigger Tool).RESULTSThere was no significant difference with respect to the frequency of rapid response team calls, code team calls, transfers to a higher level of care, deaths in hospital, length of stay, 30‐day readmission rate, or adverse events between patients whose care was transitioned with or without a face‐to‐face handoff.CONCLUSIONSFace‐to‐face handoff of patients admitted to general medical services at a large academic tertiary referral hospital was not associated with a significant difference in measured patient outcomes, including the rate of adverse events, compared to a non–face‐to‐face handoff. Additional study is needed to determine the qualities of patient handoff that optimize efficiency and safety. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2015;10:137–141. © 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine