Bespoke Radiology e-Learning

Introduction: Foundation doctors are expected to assess and interpret plain x-ray studies of the chest/abdomen before a definitive report is issued by senior staff. The Royal College of Radiologists have published guidelines (RCR curriculum) on the scope of plain film findings medical students should be familiar with.1 Studies have shown that the x-ray interpretation without feedback does not significantly improve diagnostic ability. 2 Queen’s University, Belfast Trust Radiology and Experior Medical developed an online system to assess individual student ability to interpret X-ray findings. Over a series of assessments each student’s profile is built up, identifying strengths and weakness. The system can then create bespoke individual assessments re-evaluating previously identified weak areas and quantifying interpretative skill improvement. Aim: To determine how readily an online system is adopted by senior medical students, investigating if increasing exposure to x-ray interpretation combined with cyclical formative feedback enhances performance. Methods: The system was offered to all 270 final year medical students as an online resource. The system comprised a series of 20 weekly 30 minute assessments, containing normal and abnormal x-rays within the RCR curriculum. After each assessment students were given formative feedback, including their own result, annotated answers, peer group comparison and a breakdown of areas of strength and weakness. Focus groups of 4-5 students addressed student perspectives of the system, including ease of use, image resolution, system performance across different operating platforms, perceived value of formative feedback loops, breakdown of performance and the value of bespoke personalised assessments. Research Ethics Approval was granted for the study. Data analysis was via two-sided one-sample t-test; initial minimal recruitment was estimated as 60 students, to detect a mean 10% change in performance, with a standard deviation of 20%. Results and Discussion: Over 80% (n = XXX/270) of the student cohort engaged with the study. Student baseline average was 39%, increasing to 62% by the exit test. The steadily sustained improvement (57% relative performance in interpretative diagnostic accuracy) was despite increasing test difficulty. Student feedback via focus groups was universally positive throughout the examined domains. Conclusion: The online resource proved to be valuable, with high levels of student engagement, improving performance despite increasingly difficulty testing and positive learner experience with the system. References: 1. Undergraduate Radiology Curriculum, The Royal College of Ra, April 2012. Ref No. BFCR(12)4 The Royal College of Radiologists, April 2012 2. I Satia, S Bashagha, A Bibi, R Ahmed, S Mellor, F Zaman. Assessing the accuracy and certainty in interpretating chest x-rays in the medical division. Clin Med August 2013 Vol.13 no. 4 349-352

A literature review to Examine the Validity and Reliability of group poster presentations as an assessment method of a module in an undergraduate nursing degree programme

The introduction of a poster presentation as a formative assessment method over a multiple choice examination after the first phase of a three phase “health and well-being” module in an undergraduate nursing degree programme was greeted with a storm of criticism from fellow lecturers stating that poster presentations are not valid or reliable and totally irrelevant to the assessment of learning in the module. This paper seeks to investigate these criticisms by investigating the literature regarding producing nurses fit for practice, nurse curriculum development and wider nurse education, the purpose of assessment, validity and reliability to critically evaluate the poster presentation as a legitimate assessment method for these aims.

Cabazitaxel for Hormone-Relapsed Metastatic Prostate Cancer Previously Treated With a Docetaxel-Containing Regimen: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures cabazitaxel (Jevtana(®), Sanofi, UK) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of cabazitaxel for treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-relapsed prostate cancer (mHRPC) previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based upon the company's submission to NICE. Clinical evidence for cabazitaxel was derived from a multinational randomised open-label phase III trial (TROPIC) of cabazitaxel plus prednisone or prednisolone compared with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisolone, which was assumed to represent best supportive care. The NICE final scope identified a further three comparators: abiraterone in combination with prednisone or prednisolone; enzalutamide; and radium-223 dichloride for the subgroup of people with bone metastasis only (no visceral metastasis). The company did not consider radium-223 dichloride to be a relevant comparator. Neither abiraterone nor enzalutamide has been directly compared in a trial with cabazitaxel. Instead, clinical evidence was synthesised within a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results from TROPIC showed that cabazitaxel was associated with a statistically significant improvement in both overall survival and progression-free survival compared with mitoxantrone. Results from a random-effects NMA, as conducted by the company and updated by the ERG, indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the three active treatments for both overall survival and progression-free survival. Utility data were not collected as part of the TROPIC trial, and were instead taken from the company's UK early access programme. Evidence on resource use came from the TROPIC trial, supplemented by both expert clinical opinion and a UK clinical audit. List prices were used for mitoxantrone, abiraterone and enzalutamide as directed by NICE, although commercial in-confidence patient-access schemes (PASs) are in place for abiraterone and enzalutamide. The confidential PAS was used for cabazitaxel. Sequential use of the advanced hormonal therapies (abiraterone and enzalutamide) does not usually occur in clinical practice in the UK. Hence, cabazitaxel could be used within two pathways of care: either when an advanced hormonal therapy was used pre-docetaxel, or when one was used post-docetaxel. The company believed that the former pathway was more likely to represent standard National Health Service (NHS) practice, and so their main comparison was between cabazitaxel and mitoxantrone, with effectiveness data from the TROPIC trial. Results of the company's updated cost-effectiveness analysis estimated a probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £45,982 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, which the committee considered to be the most plausible value for this comparison. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be both cheaper and more effective than abiraterone. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be cheaper but less effective than enzalutamide, resulting in an ICER of £212,038 per QALY gained for enzalutamide compared with cabazitaxel. The ERG noted that radium-223 is a valid comparator (for the indicated sub-group), and that it may be used in either of the two care pathways. Hence, its exclusion leads to uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results. In addition, the company assumed that there would be no drug wastage when cabazitaxel was used, with cost-effectiveness results being sensitive to this assumption: modelling drug wastage increased the ICER comparing cabazitaxel with mitoxantrone to over £55,000 per QALY gained. The ERG updated the company's NMA and used a random effects model to perform a fully incremental analysis between cabazitaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide and best supportive care using PASs for abiraterone and enzalutamide. Results showed that both cabazitaxel and abiraterone were extendedly dominated by the combination of best supportive care and enzalutamide. Preliminary guidance from the committee, which included wastage of cabazitaxel, did not recommend its use. In response, the company provided both a further discount to the confidential PAS for cabazitaxel and confirmation from NHS England that it is appropriate to supply and purchase cabazitaxel in pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags, which would remove the cost of drug wastage. As a result, the committee recommended use of cabazitaxel as a treatment option in people with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 whose disease had progressed during or after treatment with at least 225 mg/m(2) of docetaxel, as long as it was provided at the discount agreed in the PAS and purchased in either pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags or in vials at a reduced price to reflect the average per-patient drug wastage.