The mini-clinical evaluation exercise during medical clerkships: are learning needs and learning goals aligned?

OBJECTIVES The generation of learning goals (LGs) that are aligned with learning needs (LNs) is one of the main purposes of formative workplace-based assessment. In this study, we aimed to analyse how often trainer–student pairs identified corresponding LNs in mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) encounters and to what degree these LNs aligned with recorded LGs, taking into account the social environment (e.g. clinic size) in which the mini-CEX was conducted. METHODS Retrospective analyses of adapted mini-CEX forms (trainers’ and students’ assessments) completed by all Year 4 medical students during clerkships were performed. Learning needs were defined by the lowest score(s) assigned to one or more of the mini-CEX domains. Learning goals were categorised qualitatively according to their correspondence with the six mini-CEX domains (e.g. history taking, professionalism). Following descriptive analyses of LNs and LGs, multi-level logistic regression models were used to predict LGs by identified LNs and social context variables. RESULTS A total of 512 trainers and 165 students conducted 1783 mini-CEXs (98% completion rate). Concordantly, trainer–student pairs most often identified LNs in the domains of ‘clinical reasoning’ (23% of 1167 complete forms), ‘organisation/efficiency’ (20%) and ‘physical examination’ (20%). At least one ‘defined’ LG was noted on 313 student forms (18% of 1710). Of the 446 LGs noted in total, the most frequently noted were ‘physical examination’ (49%) and ‘history taking’ (21%). Corresponding LNs as well as social context factors (e.g. clinic size) were found to be predictors of these LGs. CONCLUSIONS Although trainer–student pairs often agreed in the LNs they identified, many assessments did not result in aligned LGs. The sparseness of LGs, their dependency on social context and their partial non-alignment with students’ LNs raise questions about how the full potential of the mini-CEX as not only a ‘diagnostic’ but also an ‘educational’ tool can be exploited.

Taking the multidimensionality of democracy seriously: institutional patterns and the quality of democracy

Democracies come in all shapes and sizes. Which configuration of political institutions produces the highest democratic quality is a notorious debate. The lineup of contenders includes ‘consensus’, ‘Westminster’, and ‘centripetal’ democracy. A trend in the evaluation of the relationship between empirical patterns of democracy and its quality is that the multidimensional nature of both concepts is increasingly taken into account. This article tests the assertion that certain centripetal configurations of proportionality in party systems and government, and unitarism in the remaining state structure, might outperform all other alternatives both in terms of inclusiveness and effectiveness. Analyzing 33 democracies, the results of interactive regression models only partially support this claim. Proportional–unitary democracies have the best track record in terms of representation, but there are little differences in participation, transparency, and government capability compared with other models.