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

Situation Background Assessment Recommendation (SBAR): Undergraduate Perspectives

Situation Background Assessment and Recommendation (SBAR): Undergraduate Perspectives C Morgan, L Adams, J Murray, R Dunlop, IK Walsh. Ian K Walsh, Centre for Medical Education, Queen’s University Belfast, Mulhouse Building, Royal Victoria Hospital, Grosvenor Road, Belfast BT12 6DP Background and Purpose: Structured communication tools are used to improve team communication quality.1,2 The Situation Background Assessment and Recommendation (SBAR) tool is widely adopted within patient safety.3 SBAR effectiveness is reportedly equivocal, suggesting use is not sustained beyond initial training.4-6 Understanding perspectives of those using SBAR may further improve clinical communication. We investigated senior medical undergraduate perspectives on SBAR, particularly when communicating with senior colleagues. Methodology: Mixed methods data collection was used. A previously piloted questionnaire with 12 five point Lickert scale questions and 3 open questions was given to all final year medical students. A subgroup also participated in 10 focus groups, deploying strictly structured audio-recorded questions. Selection was by convenience sampling, data gathered by open text questions and comments transcribed verbatim. In-vivo coding (iterative, towards data saturation) preceded thematic analysis. Results: 233 of 255 students (91%) completed the survey. 1. There were clearly contradictory viewpoints on SBAR usage. A recurrent theme was a desire for formal feedback and a relative lack of practice/experience with SBAR. 2. Students reported SBAR as having variable interpretation between individuals; limiting use as a shared mental model. 3. Brief training sessions are insufficient to embed the tool. 4. Most students reported SBAR helping effective communication, especially by providing structure in stressful situations. 5. Only 18.5% of students felt an alternative resource might be needed. Sub analysis of the themes highlighted: A. Lack of clarity regarding what information to include and information placement within the acronym, B. Senior colleague negative response to SBAR C. Lack of conciseness with the tool. Discussion and Conclusions: Despite a wide range of contradictory interpretation of SBAR utility, most students wish to retain the resource. More practice opportunities/feedback may enhance user confidence and understanding. References: (1) Leonard M, Graham S, Bonacum D. The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Quality & Safety in Health Care 2004 Oct;13(Suppl 1):85-90. (2) d'Agincourt-Canning LG, Kissoon N, Singal M, Pitfield AF. Culture, communication and safety: lessons from the airline industry. Indian J Pediatr 2011 Jun;78(6):703-708. (3) Dunsford J. Structured communication: improving patient safety with SBAR. Nurs Womens Health 2009 Oct;13(5):384-390. (4) Compton J, Copeland K, Flanders S, Cassity C, Spetman M, Xiao Y, et al. Implementing SBAR across a large multihospital health system. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2012 Jun;38(6):261-268. (5) Ludikhuize J, de Jonge E, Goossens A. Measuring adherence among nurses one year after training in applying the Modified Early Warning Score and Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation instruments. Resuscitation 2011 Nov;82(11):1428-1433. (6) Cunningham NJ, Weiland TJ, van Dijk J, Paddle P, Shilkofski N, Cunningham NY. Telephone referrals by junior doctors: a randomised controlled trial assessing the impact of SBAR in a simulated setting. Postgrad Med J 2012 Nov;88(1045):619-626.