The new final Clinical Skills examination in human medicine in Switzerland: Essential steps of exam development, implementation and evaluation, and central insights from the perspective of the national Working Group

Objective: Since 2011, the new national final examination in human medicine has been implemented in Switzerland, with a structured clinical-practical part in the OSCE format. From the perspective of the national Working Group, the current article describes the essential steps in the development, implementation and evaluation of the Federal Licensing Examination Clinical Skills (FLE CS) as well as the applied quality assurance measures. Finally, central insights gained from the last years are presented. Methods: Based on the principles of action research, the FLE CS is in a constant state of further development. On the foundation of systematically documented experiences from previous years, in the Working Group, unresolved questions are discussed and resulting solution approaches are substantiated (planning), implemented in the examination (implementation) and subsequently evaluated (reflection). The presented results are the product of this iterative procedure. Results: The FLE CS is created by experts from all faculties and subject areas in a multistage process. The examination is administered in German and French on a decentralised basis and consists of twelve interdisciplinary stations per candidate. As important quality assurance measures, the national Review Board (content validation) and the meetings of the standardised patient trainers (standardisation) have proven worthwhile. The statistical analyses show good measurement reliability and support the construct validity of the examination. Among the central insights of the past years, it has been established that the consistent implementation of the principles of action research contributes to the successful further development of the examination. Conclusion: The centrally coordinated, collaborative-iterative process, incorporating experts from all faculties, makes a fundamental contribution to the quality of the FLE CS. The processes and insights presented here can be useful for others planning a similar undertaking. Keywords: national final examination, licensing examination, summative assessment, OSCE, action research

Eighty percent of patients with surgical hip dislocation for femoroacetabular impingement have a good clinical result without osteoarthritis progression at 10 years

BACKGROUND We previously reported the 5-year followup of hips with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) that underwent surgical hip dislocation with trimming of the head-neck junction and/or acetabulum including reattachment of the labrum. The goal of this study was to report a concise followup of these patients at a minimum 10 years. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES We asked if these patients had (1) improved hip pain and function; we then determined (2) the 10-year survival rate and (3) calculated factors predicting failure. METHODS Between July 2001 and March 2003, we performed surgical hip dislocation and femoral neck osteoplasty and/or acetabular rim trimming with labral reattachment in 75 patients (97 hips). Of those, 72 patients (93 hips [96%]) were available for followup at a minimum of 10 years (mean, 11 years; range, 10-13 years). We used the anterior impingement test to assess pain and the Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score to assess function. Survivorship calculation was performed using the method of Kaplan and Meier and any of the following factors as a definition of failure: conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA), radiographic evidence of worsening osteoarthritis (OA), or a Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score less than 15. Predictive factors for any of these failures were calculated using the Cox regression analysis. RESULTS At 10-year followup, the prevalence of a positive impingement test decreased from preoperative 95% to 38% (p < 0.001) and the Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score increased from preoperative 15.3 ± 1.4 (range, 9-17) to 16.9 ± 1.3 (12-18; p < 0.001). Survivorship of these procedures for any of the defined failures was 80% (95% confidence interval, 72%-88%). The strongest predictors of failure were age > 40 years (hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval, 5.9 [4.8-7.1], p = 0.002), body mass index > 30 kg/m(2) (5.5 [3.9-7.2], p = 0.041), a lateral center-edge angle < 22° or > 32° (5.4 [4.2-6.6], p = 0.006), and a posterior acetabular coverage < 34% (4.8 [3.7-5.6], p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS At 10-year followup, 80% of patients with FAI treated with surgical hip dislocation, osteoplasty, and labral reattachment had not progressed to THA, developed worsening OA, or had a Merle d'Aubigné-Postel score of less than 15. Radiographic predictors for failure were related to over- and undertreatment of acetabular rim trimming.

Clinical Perspectives from Randomized Phase 3 Trials on Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of the ClinicalTrials.gov Database

AbstractBackground It is not easy to overview pending phase 3 trials on prostate cancer (PCa), and awareness of these trials would benefit clinicians. Objective To identify all phase 3 trials on {PCa} registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database with pending results. Design and setting On September 29, 2014, a database was established from the records for 175 538 clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. A search of this database for the substring “prostat” identified 2951 prostate trials. Phase 3 trials accounted for 441 studies, of which 333 concerned only PCa. We selected only ongoing or completed trials with pending results, that is, for which the primary endpoint had not been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Results and limitations We identified 123 phase 3 trials with pending results. Trials were conducted predominantly in North America (n = 63; 51) and Europe (n = 47; 38). The majority were on nonmetastatic disease (n = 82; 67), with 37 (30) on metastatic disease and four trials (3) including both. In terms of intervention, systemic treatment was most commonly tested (n = 71; 58), followed by local treatment 34 (28), and both systemic and local treatment (n = 11; 9), with seven (6) trials not classifiable. The 71 trials on systemic treatment included androgen deprivation therapy (n = 34; 48), chemotherapy (n = 15; 21), immunotherapy (n = 9; 13), other systemic drugs (n = 9; 13), radiopharmaceuticals (n = 2; 3), and combinations (n = 2; 3). Local treatments tested included radiation therapy (n = 27; 79), surgery (n = 5; 15), and both (n = 2; 2). A limitation is that not every clinical trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Conclusion There are many {PCa} phase 3 trials with pending results, most of which address questions regarding systemic treatments for both nonmetastatic and metastatic disease. Radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy are the interventions most commonly tested for local and systemic treatment, respectively. Patient summary This report describes all phase 3 trials on prostate cancer registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database with pending results. Most of these trials address questions regarding systemic treatments for both nonmetastatic and metastatic disease. Radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy are the interventions most commonly tested for local and systemic treatment, respectively.

Do multiple true-false items beat the commonly used one-best-answers questions regarding to the Ottawa Criteria for Good Assessment? Results of a literature review

Background: Multiple True-False-Items (MTF-Items) might offer some advantages compared to one-best-answer-questions (TypeA) as they allow more than one correct answer and may better represent clinical decisions. However, in medical education assessment MTF-Items are seldom used. Summary of Work: With this literature review existing findings on MTF-items and on TypeA were compared along the Ottawa Criteria for Good Assessment, i.e. (1) reproducibility, (2) feasibility, (3) validity, (4) acceptance, (5) educational effect, (6) catalytic effects, and (7) equivalence. We conducted a literature research on ERIC and Google Scholar including papers from the years 1935 to 2014. We used the search terms “multiple true-false”, “true-false”, “true/false”, and “Kprim” combined with “exam”, “test”, and “assessment”. Summary of Results: We included 29 out of 33 studies. Four of them were carried out in the medical field Compared to TypeA, MTF-Items are associated with (1) higher reproducibility (2) lower feasibility (3) similar validity (4) higher acceptance (5) higher educational effect (6) no studies on catalytic effects or (7) equivalence. Discussion and Conclusions: While studies show overall good characteristics of MTF items according to the Ottawa criteria, this type of question seems to be rather seldom used. One reason might be the reported lower feasibility. Overall the literature base is still weak. Furthermore, only 14 % of literature is from the medical domain. Further studies to better understand the characteristics of MTF-Items in the medical domain are warranted. Take-home messages: Overall the literature base is weak and therefore further studies are needed. Existing studies show that: MTF-Items show higher reliability, acceptance and educational effect; MTF-Items are more difficult to produce

Medication double-checking procedures in clinical practice: a cross-sectional survey of oncology nurses' experiences.

BACKGROUND Double-checking is widely recommended as an essential method to prevent medication errors. However, prior research has shown that the concept of double-checking is not clearly defined, and that little is known about actual practice in oncology, for example, what kind of checking procedures are applied. OBJECTIVE To study the practice of different double-checking procedures in chemotherapy administration and to explore nurses' experiences, for example, how often they actually find errors using a certain procedure. General evaluations regarding double-checking, for example, frequency of interruptions during and caused by a check, or what is regarded as its essential feature was assessed. METHODS In a cross-sectional survey, qualified nurses working in oncology departments of 3 hospitals were asked to rate 5 different scenarios of double-checking procedures regarding dimensions such as frequency of use in practice and appropriateness to prevent medication errors; they were also asked general questions about double-checking. RESULTS Overall, 274 nurses (70% response rate) participated in the survey. The procedure of jointly double-checking (read-read back) was most commonly used (69% of respondents) and rated as very appropriate to prevent medication errors. Jointly checking medication was seen as the essential characteristic of double-checking-more frequently than 'carrying out checks independently' (54% vs 24%). Most nurses (78%) found the frequency of double-checking in their department appropriate. Being interrupted in one's own current activity for supporting a double-check was reported to occur frequently. Regression analysis revealed a strong preference towards checks that are currently implemented at the responders' workplace. CONCLUSIONS Double-checking is well regarded by oncology nurses as a procedure to help prevent errors, with jointly checking being used most frequently. Our results show that the notion of independent checking needs to be transferred more actively into clinical practice. The high frequency of reported interruptions during and caused by double-checks is of concern.