Recent Publications by CFE Educators

BACKGROUND

Previous studies of video-based operative assessments using crowd sourcing have established the efficacy of non-expert evaluations. Our group sought to establish the equivalence of abbreviating video content for operative assessment.

METHODS

A single institution video repository of six core general surgery operations was submitted for evaluation. Each core surgery included three unique surgical performances, totaling 18 unique operative videos. Each video was edited using four different protocols based on the critical portion of the operation: (1) custom edited critical portion (2) condensed critical portion (3) first 20 s of every minute of the critical portion, and (4) first 10 s of every minute of the critical portion. In total, 72 individually edited operative videos were submitted to the C-SATS (Crowd-Sourced Assessment of Technical Skills) platform (C-SATS) for evaluation. Aggregate score for study protocol was compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. A multivariable, multilevel mixed-effects model was constructed to predict total skill assessment scores.

RESULTS

Median video lengths for each protocol were: custom, 6:20 (IQR 5:27-7:28); condensed, 10:35 (8:50-12:06); 10 s, 4:35 (2:11-6:09); and 20 s, 9:09 (4:20-12:14). There was no difference in aggregate median score among the four study protocols: custom, 15.7 (14.4-16.2); condensed, 15.8 (15.2-16.4); 10 s, 15.8 (15.3-16.1); 20 s, 16.0 (15.1-16.3); χ = 1.661, p = 0.65. Regression modeling demonstrated a significant, but minimal effect of the 10 s and 20 s editing protocols compared to the custom method on individual video score: condensed, + 0.33 (- 0.05-0.70), p = 0.09; 10 s, + 0.29 (0.04-0.55), p = 0.03; 20 s, + 0.40 (0.15-0.66), p = 0.002.

CONCLUSION

A standardized protocol for video editing abbreviated surgical performances yields reproducible assessment of surgical aptitude when assessed by non-experts.

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the treatment goals and values of adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

STUDY DESIGN

Mixed methods design based on semistructured interviews followed by cross-sectional surveys.

SETTING

Academic medical center and integrated managed care consortium.

METHODS

Phase 1 involved qualitative analysis of focus groups and interviews to define treatment goal categories. Phase 2 included analysis of cross-sectional surveys on most important treatment goals from patients with OSA presenting to sleep surgery clinic. Positive airway pressure (PAP) use, Epworth Sleepiness Scale score, and apnea-hypopnea index were obtained to determine influences on goal choices.

RESULTS

During focus groups and interviews, treatment goal themes identified included improving sleep quality, reducing daytime sleepiness, snoring sound reduction, and health risk reduction. In phase 2, 536 patients were surveyed, and they reported the primary treatment goals of health risk reduction (35%), sleep quality improvement (28%), daytime sleepiness improvement (21%), and snoring sound reduction (16%). The primary treatment goal was associated with age ( .0001), excessive daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale score >10, .0001), PAP use status ( .0001), and OSA severity (apnea-hypopnea index, .0001). Severity of OSA was associated with increasing proportion of patients choosing health risk reduction as the main treatment goal ( .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Adult OSA treatment goal choices vary with age, symptoms, PAP history, and OSA severity. Understanding patient-specific goals is the essential first step in the shared decision-making process when choosing surgical or nonsurgical treatments. Ultimately, goal-focused discussions ensure alignment of priorities and definitions of success between the patient and the provider.

The translation of research findings into clinical practice is challenging, especially fields like in pediatric rheumatology, where the evidence base is limited, there are few clinical trials, and the conditions are rare and heterogeneous. Implementation science methodologies have been shown to reduce the research- to- practice gap in other clinical settings may have similar utility in pediatric rheumatology. This paper describes the key discussion points from the inaugural Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Implementation Science retreat held in February 2020. The aim of this report is to synthesize those findings into an Implementation Science Roadmap for pediatric rheumatology research. This roadmap is based on three foundational principles: fostering curiosity and ensuring discovery, integration of research and quality improvement, and patient-centeredness. We include six key steps anchored in the principles of implementation science. Applying this roadmap will enable researchers to evaluate the full range of research activities, from the initial clinical design and evidence acquisition to the application of those findings in pediatric rheumatology clinics and direct patient care.

BACKGROUND

Advocacy is a core value of the medical profession. However, patient advocacy (advocacy) is not uniformly assessed and there are no studies of the behaviors clinical supervisors consider when assessing advocacy.

OBJECTIVE

To explore how medical students and supervisors characterize advocacy during an internal medicine clerkship, how assessment of advocacy impacted students and supervisors, and elements that support effective implementation of advocacy assessment.

DESIGN

A constructivist qualitative paradigm was used to understand advocacy assessment from the perspectives of students and supervisors.

PARTICIPANTS

Medical students who completed the internal medicine clerkship at UCSF during the 2018 and 2019 academic years and supervisors who evaluated students during this period.

APPROACH

Supervisor comments from an advocacy assessment item in the medicine clerkship and transcripts of focus groups were used to explore which behaviors students and supervisors deem to be advocacy. Separate focus groups with both students and supervisors examined the impact that advocacy assessment had on students' and supervisors' perceptions of advocacy and what additional context was necessary to effectively implement advocacy assessment.

KEY RESULTS

Students and supervisors define advocacy as identifying and addressing social determinants of health, recognizing and addressing patient wishes and concerns, navigating the health care system, conducting appropriate evaluation and treatment, and creating exceptional therapeutic alliances. Effective implementation of advocacy assessment requires the creation of non-hierarchical team environments, supervisor role modeling, and pairing assessment with teaching of advocacy skills. Inclusion of advocacy assessment reflects and dictates institutional priorities, shapes professional identity formation, and enhances advocacy skill development for students and their supervisors.

CONCLUSIONS

Students and supervisors consider advocacy to be a variety of behaviors beyond identifying and addressing social determinants of health. Effectively implementing advocacy assessment shapes students' professional identity formation, underscoring the critical importance of formally focusing on this competency in the health professions education.