Validity evidence and reliability of a Simulated Patient Feedback Instrument

In the training of healthcare professionals, one of the advantages of communication training with simulated patients (SPs) is the SP's ability to provide direct feedback to students after a simulated clinical encounter. The quality of SP feedback must be monitored, especially because it is well known that feedback can have a profound effect on student performance. Due to the current lack of valid and reliable instruments to assess the quality of SP feedback, our study examined the validity and reliability of one potential instrument, the 'modified Quality of Simulated Patient Feedback Form' (mQSF). Methods Content validity of the mQSF was assessed by inviting experts in the area of simulated clinical encounters to rate the importance of the mQSF items. Moreover, generalizability theory was used to examine the reliability of the mQSF. Our data came from videotapes of clinical encounters between six simulated patients and six students and the ensuing feedback from the SPs to the students. Ten faculty members judged the SP feedback according to the items on the mQSF. Three weeks later, this procedure was repeated with the same faculty members and recordings. Results All but two items of the mQSF received importance ratings of > 2.5 on a four-point rating scale. A generalizability coefficient of 0.77 was established with two judges observing one encounter. Conclusions The findings for content validity and reliability with two judges suggest that the mQSF is a valid and reliable instrument to assess the quality of feedback provided by simulated patients.

Results of the Questionnaire

Early diagnosis of patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD) and portal hypertension is challenging in clinical practice. A growing amount of evidence regarding noninvasive diagnostic methods, and in particular liver stiffness measurement (LSM), suggests that these tools could be used in clinical practice and might potentially limit the use of invasive, reference diagnostic tools (HVPG measurement and endoscopy). Our panel aimed at better understanding the opinion of the Baveno faculty regarding the current practice and use of invasive and noninvasive methods in the field of screening and surveillance of varices; a specific questionnaire was electronically sent to all the faculty members. The results suggested that the experts agreed on the use of noninvasive methods to rule out/identify patients with cACLD. They also indicated that the persistence or removal of the causal agent which led to cirrhosis should guide the choice of using the shortest or the longest interval among those recommended for surveillance endoscopies. Finally, the use of noninvasive methods in these clinical scenarios was pointed out as a relevant field for future research.

Challenges for medical educators: results of a survey among members of the German Association for Medical Education

BACKGROUND Despite the increasing interest in medical education in the German-speaking countries, there is currently no information available on the challenges which medical educators face. To address this problem, we carried out a web-based survey among the members of the Association for Medical Education (Gesellschaft für medizinische Ausbildung, GMA). METHODS A comprehensive survey was carried out on the need for further qualifications, expertise and the general conditions of medical educators in Germany. As part of this study, the educators were asked to list the three main challenges which they faced and which required urgent improvement. The results were analysed by means of qualitative content analysis. RESULTS The questionnaire was completed by 147 of the 373 members on the GMA mailing list (response rate: 39%). The educators named a total of 346 challenges and emphasised the following areas: limited academic recognition for engagement in teaching (53.5% of educators), insufficient institutional (31.5%) and financial support (28.4%), a curriculum in need of reform (22.8%), insufficient time for teaching assignments (18,9%), inadequate teacher competence in teaching methods (18.1%), restricted faculty development programmes (18.1%), limited networking within the institution (11.0%), lack of teaching staff (10.2%), varying preconditions of students (8.7%), insufficient recognition and promotion of medical educational research (5.5%), extensive assessment requirements (4.7%), and the lack of role models within medical education (3.2%). CONCLUSION The medical educators found the biggest challenges which they faced to be limited academic recognition and insufficient institutional and financial support. Consequently, improvements should be implemented to address these issues.