Jennifer A. Lyon

Is video review of patient encounters an effective tool for medical student learning? A review of the literature

Purpose To determine if video review of student performance during patient encounters is an effective tool for medical student learning. Methods Multiple bibliographic databases that include medical, general health care, education, psychology, and behavioral science literature were searched for the following terms: medical students, medical education, undergraduate medical education, education, self-assessment, self-evaluation, self-appraisal, feedback, videotape, video recording, televised, and DVD. The authors examined all abstracts resulting from this search and reviewed the full text of the relevant articles as well as additional articles identified in the reference lists of the relevant articles. Studies were classified by year of student (preclinical or clinical) and study design (controlled or non-controlled). Results A total of 67 articles met the final search criteria and were fully reviewed. Most studies were non-controlled and performed in the clinical years. Although the studies were quite variable in quality, design, and outcomes, in general video recording of performance and subsequent review by students with expert feedback had positive outcomes in improving feedback and ultimate performance. Video review with self-assessment alone was not found to be generally effective, but when linked with expert feedback it was superior to traditional feedback alone. Conclusion There are many methods for integrating effective use of video-captured performance into a program of learning. We recommend combining student self-assessment with feedback from faculty or other trained individuals for maximum effectiveness. We also recommend additional research in this area.

The use of Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) software to create a database of librarian-mediated literature searches.

Expert-mediated literature searching, a keystone service in biomedical librarianship, would benefit significantly from regular methodical review. This article describes the novel use of Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) software to create a database of literature searches conducted at a large academic health sciences library. An archive of paper search requests was entered into REDCap, and librarians now prospectively enter records for current searches. Having search data readily available allows librarians to reuse search strategies and track their workload. In aggregate, this data can help guide practice and determine priorities by identifying users’ needs, tracking librarian effort, and focusing librarians’ continuing education.

Library-based clinical and translational research support.

There has been a shift in the workflow at academic biomedical research and clinical care centers to promote more efficient clinical and community implementation of bench discoveries. Strong financial support for this effort is provided by the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), awarded to about sixty biomedical research institutions constituting the CTSA Consortium [1]. CTSAs offer an opportunity to speed the translation of bench discoveries to improved human health by transforming the

The Lived Experience and Training Needs of Librarians Serving at the Clinical Point-of-Care.

This study examines the emotional experiences and perceptions of librarians embedded into clinical care teams and how those perceptions affect their training and preparation needs. Qualitative research methodologies were applied to textual data drawn from focus groups (n = 21), interviews (n = 2), and an online survey (n = 167), supplemented by quantitative survey data. Phenomenological results show librarians experience strongly affective responses to clinical rounding. Important factors include personal confidence; relationships with team members, patients, and families; and the stressful environment. Analysis of librarians’ perceived educational needs indicates that training must address specialized subjects including medical knowledge, clinical culture, and institutional politics.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery: a systematic review evaluating Cochrane systematic reviews

BackgroundLaparoscopic surgical procedures (LSP) have grown in popularity due to their purported benefits of improved effectiveness and efficiency. This study summarizes the Cochrane systematic reviews’ (CSRs’) evidence comparing the use of LSP versus open procedures used for surgical patient management and comparing the CSRs’ quality and consistency of LSP evidence reported across time and different surgical specialties.MethodsThe Cochrane Database was searched to identify CSRs comparing LSP versus open procedures; 36 CSRs and 15 CSR protocols were found as of February 16, 2016. Each CSR’s clinical outcomes and major conclusions were evaluated; CSR’s quality and completeness were assessed using PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria. Overall, CSRs’ reporting variations across specialties and trends over time were summarized.ResultsA weighted analysis across all 36 CSRs found improved outcomes with LSP (odds ratio 0.90; 95% confidence interval 0.88, 0.92). Substantial CSR variation was found in the patient inclusion/exclusion criteria and clinical endpoints used. Individually, most CSR analyses showed no significant difference (65.4%) between LSP versus open procedures; 25.8% showed a LSP benefit versus 8.9% an open benefit. As a major conclusion, a positive LSP impact was documented by 8/36 (22.2%) CSRs; but only half of these CSRs decisively concluded that there was a LSP advantage. Undeclared conflicts of interest were identified in 9/36 CSRs (25.0%), raising the potential for a reporting bias. Both CSR variabilities (i.e., missing population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design statements) and PRISMA-related deficiencies were documented.ConclusionsOverall, CSR evidence supports a LSP advantage; however, clinical decisions must be driven by CSR procedure-specific evidence. Variations and inconsistencies in CSR design and reporting identified future opportunities to improve CSR quality by increasing the methodological transparency, standardizing CSR reporting, and documenting comprehensively any non-financial conflicts of interest (i.e., ongoing research and historical publications) for all CSR team members.