Morris Gordon

Educational interventions to improve handover in health care: a systematic review

Medical Education 2011: 45: 1081–1089

STORIES statement: Publication standards for healthcare education evidence synthesis

BackgroundEvidence synthesis techniques in healthcare education have been enhanced through the activities of experts in the field and the Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) collaborative. Despite this, significant heterogeneity in techniques and reporting of healthcare education systematic review still exist and limit the usefulness of such reports. The aim of this project was to produce the STORIES (STructured apprOach to the Reporting In healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis) statement to offer a guide for reporting evidence synthesis in health education for use by authors and journal editors.MethodsA review of existing published evidence synthesis consensus statements was undertaken. A modified Delphi process was used. In stage one, expert participants were asked to state whether common existing items identified were relevant, to suggest relevant texts and specify any items they feel should be included. The results were analysed and a second stage commenced where all synthesised items were presented and participants asked to state whether they should be included or amend as needed. After further analysis, the full statement was sent for final review and comment.ResultsNineteen experts participated in the panel from 35 invitations. Thirteen text sources were proposed, six existing items amended and twelve new items synthesised. After stage two, 25 amended consensus items were proposed for inclusion. The final statement contains several items unique to this context, including description of relevant conceptual frameworks or theoretical constructs, description of qualitative methodologies with rationale for their choice and presenting the implications for educators in practice of the results obtained.ConclusionsAn international expert panel has agreed upon a consensus statement of 25 items for the reporting of evidence synthesis within healthcare education. This unique set of items is focused on context, rather than a specific methodology. This statement can be used for those writing for publication and reviewing such manuscripts to ensure reporting supports and best informs the wider healthcare education community.

Devising a consensus definition and framework for non-technical skills in healthcare to support educational design: A modified Delphi study

Abstract Background: Non-technical skills are a subset of human factors that focus on the individual and promote safety through teamwork and awareness. There is no widely adopted competency- or outcome-based framework for non-technical skills training in healthcare. The authors set out to devise such a framework using a modified Delphi approach. Methods: An exhaustive list of published and team suggested items was presented to the expert panel for ranking and to propose a definition. In the second round, a focused list was presented, as well as the proposed definition elements. The finalised framework was sent to the panel for review. Results: Sixteen experts participated. The final framework consists of 16 competencies for all and eight specific competencies for team leaders. The consensus definition describes non-technical skills as “a set of social (communication and team work) and cognitive (analytical and personal behaviour) skills that support high quality, safe, effective and efficient inter-professional care within the complex healthcare system”. Conclusions: The authors have produced a new competency framework, through the works of an International expert panel, which is not discipline specific that can be used by curriculum developers, educational innovators and clinical teachers to support developments in the field.

Teaching handover of care to medical students.

Background:  Handover is a key activity in acute health care, with patient safety implications if it is not performed well. This is becoming more important with shorter working hours and therefore a greater number of handovers. Despite this there is a paucity of evidence to guide education to enhance practice. A teaching session for senior medical students on handover of care was devised, delivered and evaluated, with the aim of producing a theoretically sound intervention that is acceptable to students and can be delivered with limited resources.

Human factors perspective on the prescribing behavior of recent medical graduates: implications for educators.

Background Junior doctors are at high risk of involvement in medication errors. Educational interventions to enhance human factors and specifically nontechnical skills in health care are increasingly reported, but there is no work in the context of prescribing improvement to guide such education. We set out to determine the elements that influence prescribing from a human factors perspective by recent medical graduates and use this to guide education in this area. Methods A total of 206 recent medical graduates of the North Western Foundation School were asked to describe their views on safety practices and behaviors. Free text data regarding prescribing behaviors were collected 1, 2, and 4 months after starting their posts. A 94.1% response rate was achieved. Qualitative analysis of data was completed using the constant comparison method. Five initial categories were developed, and the researchers subsequently developed thematic indices according to their understanding of the emerging content of the data. Further data were collected through group interviews 8–9 months into the placement to ensure thematic saturation. Results Six themes were established at the axial coding level, ie, contributors to inappropriate prescribing, contributors to appropriate prescribing, professional responsibility, prescribing error, current practices, and methods for improvement of prescribing. Utilizing appropriate theoretical elements, we describe how recent medical graduates employ situational and error awareness to guide risk assessment. Conclusion We have modeled the human factors of prescribing behavior by recent medical graduates. As these factors are related to a number of recognized elements of nontechnical skills training within health care, educators should consider design elements from such existing interventions to support prescribing improvement programs. Future research should seek to assess the effectiveness of prescribing focused nontechnical skills training.

Systematic reviews in medical education: a practical approach: AMEE guide 94.

Abstract The twentieth century saw a paradigm shift in medical education, with acceptance that ‘knowledge’ and ‘truth’ are contextual, in flux and always evolving. The twenty-first century has seen a greater explosion in computer technology leading to a massive increase in information and an ease of availability, both offering great potential to future research. However, for many decades, there have been voices within the health care system raising an alarm at the lack of evidence to support widespread clinical practice; from these voices, the concept of and need for evidence-based health-care has grown. Parallel to this development has been the emergence of evidence-based medical education; if healthcare is evidence-based, then the training of practitioners who provide this healthcare must equally be evidence-based. Evidence-based medical education involves the systematic collection, synthesis and application of all available evidence, when available, and not just the opinion of experts. This represented a seismic shift from a position of expert based consensus guidance to evidence led guidance for evolving clinical knowledge. The aim of this guide is to provide a practical approach to the development and application of a systematic review in medical education; a valid method used in this guide to seek and substantiate the effects of interventions in medical education.

A solid grounding: prescribing skills training

Prescribing is an error‐prone process for all doctors, from those who are newly qualified through to those at consultant level. Newly qualified doctors write the majority of in–patient prescriptions and therefore represent an opportunity for safety improvement. Attention to prescribing as a patient‐safety issue and potential educational interventions to help improve the situation have been published, but offer little to inform educators why and how any interventions may succeed. In order to identify areas of good practice, and to provide evidence of areas requiring further investigation and innovation, we aimed to ascertain the full range of prescribing practices for final‐year medical students and newly qualified doctors across a large geopolitical region of the UK.

Racecadotril for acute diarrhoea in children: systematic review and meta-analyses

Objective Racecadotril is an antisecretory agent that can prevent fluid/electrolyte depletion from the bowel as a result of acute diarrhoea without affecting intestinal motility. An up-to-date systematic review is indicated to summarise the evidence on racecadotril for the treatment of acute diarrhoea in children. Design A Cochrane format systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were performed independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Patients Children with acute diarrhoea, as defined by the primary studies. Interventions RCTs comparing racecadotril with placebo or other interventions. Main outcome measurs Duration of illness, stool output/volume and adverse events. Results Seven RCTs were included, five comparing racecadotril with placebo or no intervention, one with pectin/kaolin and one with loperamide. Moderate to high risk of bias was present in all studies. There was no significant difference in efficacy or adverse events between racecadotril and loperamide. A meta-analysis of three studies with 642 participants showed significantly shorter duration of symptoms with racecadotril compared with placebo (mean difference −53.48 h, 95% CI −65.64 to −41.33). A meta-analysis of five studies with 949 participants showed no significant difference in adverse events between racecadotril and placebo (risk ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.34). Conclusions There is some evidence that racecadotril is more effective than placebo or no intervention in reducing the duration of illness and stool output in children with acute diarrhoea. However, the overall quality of the evidence is limited due to sparse data, heterogeneity and risk of bias. Racecadotril appears to be safe and well tolerated.

Best Evidence Medical and Health Professional Education (BEME) collaboration: A moving spotlight

Abstract Early this year, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of philosophy presented a new theory of time that caught our interest. One of the key concepts that Professor Skow presented is the “moving spotlight” theory. As Skow asserts, the experiences had a year ago or 10 years ago are still just as real, they’re just “inaccessible” because they are now in a different part of spacetime. This was felt to be an elegant notion to inform this ‘spotlight’ piece on BEME (www.bemecollaboration.org).

Are we talking the same paradigm? Considering methodological choices in health education systematic review

Abstract For the past two decades, there have been calls for medical education to become more evidence-based. Whilst previous works have described how to use such methods, there are no works discussing when or why to select different methods from either a conceptual or pragmatic perspective. This question is not to suggest the superiority of such methods, but that having a clear rationale to underpin such choices is key and should be communicated to the reader of such works. Our goal within this manuscript is to consider the philosophical alignment of these different review and synthesis modalities and how this impacts on their suitability to answer different systematic review questions within health education. The key characteristic of a systematic review that should impact the synthesis choice is discussed in detail. By clearly defining this and the related outcome expected from the review and for educators who will receive this outcome, the alignment will become apparent. This will then allow deployment of an appropriate methodology that is fit for purpose and will indeed justify the significant work needed to complete a systematic. Key items discussed are the positivist synthesis methods meta-analysis and content analysis to address questions in the form of ‘whether and what’ education is effective. These can be juxtaposed with the constructivist aligned thematic analysis and meta-ethnography to address questions in the form of ‘why’. The concept of the realist review is also considered. It is proposed that authors of such work should describe their research alignment and the link between question, alignment and evidence synthesis method selected. The process of exploring the range of modalities and their alignment highlights gaps in the researcher’s arsenal. Future works are needed to explore the impact of such changes in writing from authors of medical education systematic review.