In-training assessment - Its potential in enhancing clinical teaching

Context In-training assessment (ITA) has established its place alongside formative and summative assessment at both the undergraduate and postgraduate level. In this paper the authors aimed to identify those characteristics of ITA that could enhance clinical teaching. Methods A literature review and discussions by an expert working group at the Ninth Cambridge Conference identified the aspects of ITA that could enhance clinical teaching. Results The features of ITA identified included defining the specific benefits to the learner, teacher and institution, and highlighting the patient as the context for ITA and clinical teaching. The ‘mapping’ of a learner’s progress towards the clinical teaching objectives by using multiple assessments over time, by multiple observers in both a systematic and opportunistic way correlates with the incremental nature of reaching clinical competence. Conclusions The importance of ITA based on both direct and indirect evidence of what the learner actually does in the real clinical setting is emphasized. Particular attention is given to addressing concerns in the more controversial areas of assessor training, ratings and documentation for ITA. Areas for future research are also identified.

The good, the bad and the ugly of bone-anchored prostheses: Guideline to assess true clinical outcomes

The aim of this study is to share the key elements of an evaluation framework to determine the true clinical outcomes of bone-anchored prostheses. Scientists, clinicians and policy makers are encouraged to implement their own evaluations relying on the proposed framework using a single database to facilitate reflective practice and, eventually, robust prospective studies.

Salt in the desert: A comparison of clinical versus serum-calculated osmolality determination of dehydration

Background: Clinicians frequently use their own judgement to assess patient’s hydration status although there is limited evidence for the diagnostic utility of any individual clinical symptom. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of clinically assessed dehydration in older hospital patients (using multiple symptoms), versus dehydration measured using serum-calculated osmolality (CO) as the reference standard. Method: Participants were 44 hospital patients aged ≥ 60 years. Dehydration was assessed clinically and pathologically (CO) within 24 hours of admission and at study exit. Indicators of diagnostic accuracy were calculated. Results: Clinicians identified 27% of patients as dehydrated at admission, and 19% at exit, compared to 19% and 16% using CO. Agreement between the measures was fair at admission and poor at exit. Clinical assessment showed poor sensitivity for predicting dehydration with reasonable specificity. Conclusions: Compared to the use of CO, clinical assessment of dehydration in older patients was poor. Given that failure to identify dehydration in this population may have serious consequences, we recommend that clinicians do not rely upon their own assessments without also using the reference standard.