An electronic portfolio for quantitative assessment of surgical skills in undergraduate medical education.

BACKGROUND We evaluated a newly designed electronic portfolio (e-Portfolio) that provided quantitative evaluation of surgical skills. Medical students at the University of Seville used the e-Portfolio on a voluntary basis for evaluation of their performance in undergraduate surgical subjects. METHODS Our new web-based e-Portfolio was designed to evaluate surgical practical knowledge and skills targets. Students recorded each activity on a form, attached evidence, and added their reflections. Students self-assessed their practical knowledge using qualitative criteria (yes/no), and graded their skills according to complexity (basic/advanced) and participation (observer/assistant/independent). A numerical value was assigned to each activity, and the values of all activities were summated to obtain the total score. The application automatically displayed quantitative feedback. We performed qualitative evaluation of the perceived usefulness of the e-Portfolio and quantitative evaluation of the targets achieved. RESULTS Thirty-seven of 112 students (33%) used the e-Portfolio, of which 87% reported that they understood the methodology of the portfolio. All students reported an improved understanding of their learning objectives resulting from the numerical visualization of progress, all students reported that the quantitative feedback encouraged their learning, and 79% of students felt that their teachers were more available because they were using the e-Portfolio. Only 51.3% of students reported that the reflective aspects of learning were useful. Individual students achieved a maximum of 65% of the total targets and 87% of the skills targets. The mean total score was 345 ± 38 points. For basic skills, 92% of students achieved the maximum score for participation as an independent operator, and all achieved the maximum scores for participation as an observer and assistant. For complex skills, 62% of students achieved the maximum score for participation as an independent operator, and 98% achieved the maximum scores for participation as an observer or assistant. CONCLUSIONS Medical students reported that use of an electronic portfolio that provided quantitative feedback on their progress was useful when the number and complexity of targets were appropriate, but not when the portfolio offered only formative evaluations based on reflection. Students felt that use of the e-Portfolio guided their learning process by indicating knowledge gaps to themselves and teachers.

An electronic portfolio for quantitative assessment of surgical skills in undergraduate medical education.

BACKGROUND We evaluated a newly designed electronic portfolio (e-Portfolio) that provided quantitative evaluation of surgical skills. Medical students at the University of Seville used the e-Portfolio on a voluntary basis for evaluation of their performance in undergraduate surgical subjects. METHODS Our new web-based e-Portfolio was designed to evaluate surgical practical knowledge and skills targets. Students recorded each activity on a form, attached evidence, and added their reflections. Students self-assessed their practical knowledge using qualitative criteria (yes/no), and graded their skills according to complexity (basic/advanced) and participation (observer/assistant/independent). A numerical value was assigned to each activity, and the values of all activities were summated to obtain the total score. The application automatically displayed quantitative feedback. We performed qualitative evaluation of the perceived usefulness of the e-Portfolio and quantitative evaluation of the targets achieved. RESULTS Thirty-seven of 112 students (33%) used the e-Portfolio, of which 87% reported that they understood the methodology of the portfolio. All students reported an improved understanding of their learning objectives resulting from the numerical visualization of progress, all students reported that the quantitative feedback encouraged their learning, and 79% of students felt that their teachers were more available because they were using the e-Portfolio. Only 51.3% of students reported that the reflective aspects of learning were useful. Individual students achieved a maximum of 65% of the total targets and 87% of the skills targets. The mean total score was 345 ± 38 points. For basic skills, 92% of students achieved the maximum score for participation as an independent operator, and all achieved the maximum scores for participation as an observer and assistant. For complex skills, 62% of students achieved the maximum score for participation as an independent operator, and 98% achieved the maximum scores for participation as an observer or assistant. CONCLUSIONS Medical students reported that use of an electronic portfolio that provided quantitative feedback on their progress was useful when the number and complexity of targets were appropriate, but not when the portfolio offered only formative evaluations based on reflection. Students felt that use of the e-Portfolio guided their learning process by indicating knowledge gaps to themselves and teachers.

Monotherapy with darunavir/ritonavir is effective and safe in clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION Monotherapy against HIV has undoubted theoretical advantages and has good scientific fundaments. However, it is still controversial and here we will analyze the efficacy and safety of MT with darunavir with ritonavir (DRV/r) on patients who have received this treatment in our hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS Observational retrospective study that includes patients from 10 Andalusian hospitals that have received DRV/r in MT and that have been followed over a minimum of 12 months. We carried out a statistical descriptive analysis based on the profile of patients who had been prescribed MT and the efficacy and safety that were observed, paying special attention to treatment failure and virological evolution. RESULTS DRV/r was prescribed to 604 patients, of which 41.1% had a CD4 nadir <200/mmc. 33.1% had chronic hepatitis caused by HCV, had received an average of five lines of previous treatment and had a history of treatment failure to analogues in 33%, to non-analogues 22 and protease inhibitors (PI) in 19.5%. 76.6% proceeded from a previous treatment with PI. The simplification was the main criteria for the instauration of MT in the 81.5% and the adverse effects in the 18.5%. We managed to maintain MT in 84% of cases, with only 4.8% of virological failure (VF) with viral load (VL) >200 c/mL and 3.6% additional losses due to VF with VL between 50 and 200 copies/mL. Thirty three genotypes were performed after failure without findings of resistance mutations to DRV/r or other IPs. Only 23.7% of patients presented some blips during the period of exposition to MT. Eighty seven percent of all determinations of VL had <50 copies/mL, and only 4.99% had >200 copies/mL. Although up to 14.9% registered at some point an AE, only 2.6% abandoned MT because of AE and 1.2% because of voluntary decision. Although the average of total and LDL cholesterol increases 10 mg/dL after 2 years of follow-up, so did HDL cholesterol in 3mg/dL and the values of triglycerides (-14 mg/dL) and GPT (-6 UI/mL) decreased. The average count of CD4 lymphocytes increased from 642 to 714/mm(3) at 24 weeks. CONCLUSIONS In a very broad series of patients obtained from clinical practice, data from clinical trials was confirmed: MT with DRV as a de-escalation strategy is very safe, it's associated to a negligible rate of adverse effects and maintains a good suppression of HIV replication. VF (with >50 or >200 copies/mL) is always under 10% and in any case without consequences.

Liver safety assessment: required data elements and best practices for data collection and standardization in clinical trials.

A workshop was convened to discuss best practices for the assessment of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in clinical trials. In a breakout session, workshop attendees discussed necessary data elements and standards for the accurate measurement of DILI risk associated with new therapeutic agents in clinical trials. There was agreement that in order to achieve this goal the systematic acquisition of protocol-specified clinical measures and lab specimens from all study subjects is crucial. In addition, standard DILI terms that address the diverse clinical and pathologic signatures of DILI were considered essential. There was a strong consensus that clinical and lab analyses necessary for the evaluation of cases of acute liver injury should be consistent with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance on pre-marketing risk assessment of DILI in clinical trials issued in 2009. A recommendation that liver injury case review and management be guided by clinicians with hepatologic expertise was made. Of note, there was agreement that emerging DILI signals should prompt the systematic collection of candidate pharmacogenomic, proteomic and/or metabonomic biomarkers from all study subjects. The use of emerging standardized clinical terminology, CRFs and graphic tools for data review to enable harmonization across clinical trials was strongly encouraged. Many of the recommendations made in the breakout session are in alignment with those made in the other parallel sessions on methodology to assess clinical liver safety data, causality assessment for suspected DILI, and liver safety assessment in special populations (hepatitis B, C, and oncology trials). Nonetheless, a few outstanding issues remain for future consideration.

Oral and general health-related quality of life in patients treated for oral cancer compared to control group.

BACKGROUND Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is gaining importance as a valuable outcome measure in oral cancer area. The aim of this study was to assess the general and oral HRQoL of oral and oropharyngeal cancer patients 6 or more months after treatment and compare them with a population free from this disease. METHODS A cross-sectional study was carried out with patients treated for oral cancer at least 6 months post-treatment and a gender and age group matched control group. HRQoL was measured with the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12); oral HRQoL (OHRQoL) was evaluated using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) and the Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (OIDP). Multivariable regression models assessed the association between the outcomes (SF-12, OHIP-14 and OIDP) and the exposure (patients versus controls), adjusting for sex, age, social class, functional tooth units and presence of illness. RESULTS For patients (n = 142) and controls (n = 142), 64.1% were males. The mean age was 65.2 (standard deviation (sd): 12.9) years in patients and 67.5 (sd: 13.7) years in controls. Patients had worse SF-12 Physical Component Summary scores than controls even in fully the adjusted model [β-coefficient = -0.11 (95% CI: -5.12-(-0.16)]. The differences in SF-12 Mental Component Summary were not statistically significant. Regarding OHRQoL patients had 11.63 (95% CI: 6.77-20.01) higher odds for the OHIP-14 and 21.26 (95% CI: 11.54-39.13) higher odds for OIDP of being in a worse category of OHRQoL compared to controls in the fully adjusted model. CONCLUSION At least 6 months after treatment, oral cancer patients had worse OHRQoL, worse physical HRQoL and similar psychological HRQoL than the general population.