Dataset Information

The East Anglian specialist registrar assessment tool.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In our region, it was acknowledged that the process of assessment needed to be improved, but before developing a system for this, there was a need to define the "competent or satisfactory trainee".

Objective

To outline the process by which a consensus was achieved on this standard, and how a system for formally assessing competency across a wide range of knowledge skills and attitudes was subsequently agreed on, thus enabling increased opportunities for training and feedback and improving the accuracy of assessment in the region.

Methods

The opinions of trainees and trainers from across the region were collated, and a consensus was achieved with regard to the minimum acceptable standard for a trainee in emergency medicine, thus defining a competent trainee. The group that set the standard then focused on identifying the assessment methods most appropriate for the evaluation of the knowledge, skills and attitudes required of an emergency medicine trainee. The tool was subsequently trialled for a period of 6 months, and opinion evaluated by use of a questionnaire.

Results

The use of the tool was reviewed from both the trainers' and trainees' perspectives. 42% (n = 11) of trainers and 31% (n = 8) trainees responded to the questionnaire. In the region, there were 26 trainers and 26 trainees. Five trainees and nine trainers had used the tool. 93% (14/15) of respondents thought that the descriptors used to describe the satisfactory trainee were acceptable; 89% (8/9) of trainers thought that it helped them assess trainees more accurately. 60% (3/5) of trainees thought that, as a result, they had a better understanding of their weak areas.

Conclusion

We believe that we achieved a consensus across our region as to what defined a satisfactory trainee and set the standard against which all our trainees would subsequently be evaluated. The use of this tool to assess trainees during the pilot period was disappointing; however, we were encouraged that most of those using the tool thought that it allowed an objective assessment of trainees and feedback on areas requiring further work. Those who used the tool identified important reasons that may have hindered widespread use of the assessment tool.

SUBMITTER: Robinson S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2660024 | biostudies-literature | 2007 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The East Anglian specialist registrar assessment tool.

Robinson Susan S Boursicot Katharine K Hayhurst Catherine C

Emergency medicine journal : EMJ 20070301 3

<h4>Background</h4>In our region, it was acknowledged that the process of assessment needed to be improved, but before developing a system for this, there was a need to define the "competent or satisfactory trainee".<h4>Objective</h4>To outline the process by which a consensus was achieved on this standard, and how a system for formally assessing competency across a wide range of knowledge skills and attitudes was subsequently agreed on, thus enabling increased opportunities for training and fee ...[more]

PMID: 17351222

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatient encounters are the core learning activity of Australian general practice (family practice) training. Exposure to patient demographics and presentations may vary from one general practice registrar (vocational trainee) to another. This can affect comprehensiveness of training. Currently, there is no mechanism to systematically capture the content of GP registrar consultations. The aim of the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) study is to document longitudinally the nature and associations of consultation-based clinical and educational experiences of general practice registrars.Methods/designThis is an ongoing prospective multi-site cohort study of general practice registrars' consultations, entailing paper-based recording of consultation data. The study setting is general practices affiliated with three geographically-based Australian general practice regional training providers. Registrars record details of 60 consecutive consultations. Data collected includes registrar demographics, details of the consultation, patient demographics, reasons for encounter and problems managed. Problems managed are coded with the International Classification of Primary Care (second edition) classification system. Additionally, registrars record educational factors related to the encounter. The study will follow the clinical exposure of each registrar six-monthly over the 18 months to two years (full-time equivalent) of their general practice training program.ConclusionsThe study will provide data on a range of factors (patient, registrar and consultation factors). This data will be used to inform a range of educational decisions as well as being used to answer educational research questions. We plan to use ReCEnT as a formative assessment tool for registrars and help identify and address educational needs. The study will facilitate program evaluation by the participating training providers and thus improve articulation of educational programs with practice experience. From the research point of view it will address an evidence gap - the in-practice clinical and educational experience of general practice trainees, determinants of these experiences, and the determinants of registrars' patterns of practice (for example, prescribing practice) over the course of their training.

Project description:Despite significant investments in health systems research (HSR) capacity development, there is a dearth of information regarding how to assess HSR capacity. An alliance of schools of public health (SPHs) in East and Central Africa developed a tool for the self-assessment of HSR capacity with the aim of producing institutional capacity development plans.Between June and November 2011, seven SPHs across the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda implemented this co-created tool. The objectives of the institutional assessments were to assess existing capacities for HSR and to develop capacity development plans to address prioritized gaps. A mixed-method approach was employed consisting of document analysis, self-assessment questionnaires, in-depth interviews, and institutional dialogues aimed at capturing individual perceptions of institutional leadership, collective HSR skills, knowledge translation, and faculty incentives to engage in HSR. Implementation strategies for the capacity assessment varied across the SPHs. This paper reports findings from semi-structured interviews with focal persons from each SPH, to reflect on the process used at each SPH to execute the institutional assessments as well as the perceived strengths and weaknesses of the assessment process.The assessment tool was robust enough to be utilized in its entirety across all seven SPHs resulting in a thorough HSR capacity assessment and a capacity development plan for each SPH. Successful implementation of the capacity assessment exercises depended on four factors: (i) support from senior leadership and collaborators, (ii) a common understanding of HSR, (iii) adequate human and financial resources for the exercise, and (iv) availability of data. Methods of extracting information from the results of the assessments, however, were tailored to the unique objectives of each SPH.This institutional HSR capacity assessment tool and the process for its utilization may be valuable for any SPH. The self-assessments, as well as interviews with external stakeholders, provided diverse sources of input and galvanized interest around HSR at multiple levels.

Project description:BackgroundDuring vocational general practice training, the content of each trainee's (in Australia, registrars') in-consultation clinical experience is expected to entail a breadth of conditions that exemplify general practice, enabling registrars to gain competency in managing common clinical conditions and common clinical scenarios. Prior to the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) project there was little research into the content of registrars' consultations despite its importance to quality of training. ReCEnT aims to document the consultation-based clinical and educational experiences of individual Australian registrars.MethodsReCEnT is an inception cohort study. It is comprised of closely interrelated research and educational components. Registrars are recruited by participating general practice regional training organisations. They provide demographic information about themselves, their skills, and their previous training. In each of three 6-month long general practice training terms they provide data about the practice where they work and collect data from 60 consecutive patient encounters using an online portal. Analysis of data uses standard techniques including linear and logistic regression modelling. The ReCEnT project has approval from the University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee, Reference H-2009-0323.DiscussionStrengths of the study are the granular detail of clinical practice relating to patient demographics, presenting problems/diagnoses, medication decisions, investigations requested, referrals made, procedures undertaken, follow-up arranged, learning goals generated, and in-consultation help sought; the linking of the above variables to the presenting problems/diagnoses to which they pertain; and a very high response rate. The study is limited by not having information regarding severity of illness, medical history of the patient, full medication regimens, or patient compliance to clinical decisions made at the consultation. Data is analysed using standard techniques to answer research questions that can be categorised as: mapping analyses of clinical exposure; exploratory analyses of associations of clinical exposure; mapping and exploratory analyses of educational actions; mapping and exploratory analyses of other outcomes; longitudinal 'within-registrar' analyses; longitudinal 'within-program' analyses; testing efficacy of educational interventions; and analyses of ReCEnT data together with data from other sources. The study enables identification of training needs and translation of subsequent evidence-based educational innovations into specialist training of general practitioners.

Project description:ImportanceWhile a gender pay gap in medicine has been well documented, relatively little research has addressed mechanisms that mediate gender differences in referral income for specialists.ObjectiveTo examine gender-based disparities in medical and surgical specialist referrals in Ontario, Canada.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study included referrals for specialist care ascertained from Ontario Health Insurance Plan physician billings for fiscal year 2018 to 2019. Participants were specialist physicians who received new patient consultations from April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019, and the associated referring physicians. Data were analyzed from April 2018 to March 2020, including a 12-month follow-up period.ExposuresSpecialist and referring physician gender (female or male).Main outcomes and measuresRevenue per referral was defined based on an episode-of-care approach as total billings for a 12-month period from the initial consultation. Mean total billings for female and male specialists were compared and the differential divided into the portion owing to referral volume vs referral revenue. Difference-in-differences multivariable regression analysis was used to estimate gender-based differences in revenue per referral. For each referring physician, gender-based differences in referral patterns were examined using case-control analysis, in which specialists who received a referral were compared with matched control specialists who did not receive a referral. This analysis considered the gender of the specialist and concordance between the gender of the referring physician and specialist, among other characteristics.ResultsOf 7 621 365 new referrals, 32 824 referring physicians, of whom 13 512 (41.2%) were female (mean [SD] age, 46.3 [11.6] years) and 19 312 (58.8%) were male (mean [SD] age, 52.9 [13.5] years), made referrals to 13 582 specialists, of whom 4890 (36.0%) were female (mean [SD] age, 45.6 [11.0] years) and 8692 (64.0%) were male (mean [SD] age, 51.8 [13.0] years). Male specialists received more mean (SD) referrals than did female specialists (633 [666] vs 433 [515]), and the mean (SD) revenue per referral was higher for males ($350 [$474]) compared with females ($316 [$393]). Adjusted analysis demonstrated a -4.7% (95% CI, -4.9% to -4.5%) difference in the revenue per referral between male and female specialists. Multivariable regression analysis found that physicians referred more often to specialists of the same gender (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.04) but had higher odds of referring to male specialists (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.09-1.11).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of the gender pay gap in specialist referral income, the number and revenue from referrals received differed by gender, as did the odds of receiving a referral from a physician of the same gender. Future research should examine the effectiveness of different policies to address this gap, such as a centralized, gender-blinded referral system.

Dataset Information

The East Anglian specialist registrar assessment tool.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

The East Anglian specialist registrar assessment tool.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets