Scientists in Control: a progressive approach to preparing work ready graduates in QC, EQA and method evaluation

Introduction QC, EQA and method evaluation are integral to delivery of quality patient results. To ensure QUT graduates have a solid grounding in these key areas of practice, a theory-to-practice approach is used to progressively develop and consolidate these skills. Methods Using a BCG assay for serum albumin, each student undertakes an eight week project analysing two levels of QC alongside ‘patient’ samples. Results are assessed using both single rules and Multirules. Concomitantly with the QC analyses, an EQA project is undertaken; students analyse two EQA samples, twice in the semester. Results are submitted using cloud software and data for the full ‘peer group’ returned to students in spreadsheets and incomplete Youden plots. Youden plots are completed with target values and calculated ALP values and analysed for ‘lab’ and method performance. The method has a low-level positive bias, which leads to the need to investigate an alternative method. Building directly on the EQA of the first project and using the scenario of a lab that services renal patients, students undertake a method validation comparing BCP and BCG assays in another eight-week project. Precision and patient comparison studies allow students to assess whether the BCP method addresses the proportional bias of the BCG method and overall is a ‘better’ alternative method for analysing serum albumin, accounting for pragmatic factors, such as cost, as well as performance characteristics. Results Students develop understanding of the purpose and importance of QC and EQA in delivering quality results, the need to optimise testing to deliver quality results and importantly, a working knowledge of the analyses that go into ensuring this quality. In parallel to developing these key workplace competencies, students become confident, competent practitioners, able to pipette accurately and precisely and organise themselves in a busy, time pressured work environment.

The mini clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) for assessing clinical performance of international medical graduates

Objective: To evaluate the feasibility, reliability and acceptability of the mini clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) for performance assessment among international medical graduates (IMGs). Design, setting and participants: Observational study of 209 patient encounters involving 28 IMGs and 35 examiners at three metropolitan teaching hospitals in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, September-December 2006. Main outcome measures: The reliability of the mini-CEX was estimated using generatisability (G) analysis, and its acceptability was evaluated by a written survey of the examiners and IMGs. Results: The G coefficient for eight encounters was 0.88, suggesting that the reliability of the mini-CEX was 0.90 for 10 encounters. Almost half of the IMGs (7/16) and most examiners (14/18) were satisfied with the mini-CEX as a learning tool. Most of the IMGs and examiners enjoyed the immediate feedback, which is a strong component of the tool. Conclusion: The mini-CEX is a reliable tool for performance assessment of IMGs, and is acceptable to and well received by both learners and supervisors.

University of Edinburgh: Developing 21st century career-ready graduates case study

Technology for employability: HE case studies

A Catalogue of the Alpha Chapter Boston University Graduates of the School of Theology 1850-1905

A listing of graduate of Boston University School of Theology and predecessor school. Arranged by class year, alphabetical by last name and geographically by region.

Regional Follow up of Late Preterm Neonatal Intensive Care Graduates: Methodological Considerations.

The aim is to guide researchers who are contemplating embarking on research by discussing the methodological challenges encountered in a retrospective follow-up study of three-year-old, late preterm infants (LPIs) who received neonatal intensive care (NIC) in Northern Ireland in 2006. The importance of effective research examining the longer term outcomes of infants admitted to NIC has received increasing recognition. Follow-up cohort and longitudinal studies have grown in number globally, yet the research methodology relating to follow up of NIC graduates is unclear. This paper highlights the methodological challenges of conducting retrospective follow-up research, from the initial planning stages through to the collection of data from the children, including identification of infants from a retrospective database, ethical issues, child-safety concerns and recruitment challenges. This paper creates an awareness of potential issues that may arise in follow-up research with NIC graduates. The paper also offers practical and effective examples of dealing with these issues, helping to ensure the smooth running of an ethical, professionally conducted, methodologically sound and clinically relevant follow-up study.

How Prepared are UK Medical Graduates for Practice? Final report from a programme of research commissioned by the General Medical Council

This programme of research aimed to understand the extent to which current UK medical graduates are prepared for practice. Commissioned by the General Medical Council, we conducted: (1) A Rapid Review of the literature between 2009 and 2013; (2) narrative interviews with a range of stakeholders; and (3) longitudinal audio-diaries with Foundation Year 1 doctors. The Rapid Review (RR) resulted in data from 81 manuscripts being extracted and mapped against a coding framework (including outcomes from Tomorrow's Doctors (2009) (TD09)). A narrative synthesis of the data was undertaken. Narrative interviews were conducted with 185 participants from 8 stakeholder groups: F1 trainees, newly registered trainee doctors, clinical educators, undergraduate and postgraduate deans and foundation programme directors, other healthcare professionals, employers, policy and government and patient and public representatives. Longitudinal audio-diaries were recorded by 26 F1 trainees over 4 months. The data were analysed thematically and mapped against TD09. Together these data shed light onto how preparedness for practice is conceptualised, measured, how prepared UK medical graduates are for practice, the effectiveness of transition interventions and the currently debated issue of bringing full registration forward to align with medical students’ graduation. Preparedness for practice was conceptualised as both a long- and short-term venture that included personal readiness as well as knowledge, skills and attitudes. It has mainly been researched using self-report measures of generalised incidents that have been shown to be problematic. In terms of transition interventions: assistantships were found to be valuable and efficacious for proactive students as team members, shadowing is effective when undertaken close to employment/setting of F1 post and induction is generally effective but of inconsistent quality. The August transition was highlighted in our interview and audio-diary data where F1s felt unprepared, particularly for the step-change in responsibility, workload, degree of multitasking and understanding where to go for help. Evidence of preparedness for specific tasks, skills and knowledge was contradictory: trainees are well prepared for some practical procedures but not others, reasonably well prepared for history taking and full physical examinations, but mostly unprepared for adopting an holistic understanding of the patient, involving patients in their care, safe and legal prescribing, diagnosing and managing complex clinical conditions and providing immediate care in medical emergencies. Evidence for preparedness for interactional and interpersonal aspects of practice was inconsistent with some studies in the RR suggesting graduates were prepared for team working and communicating with colleagues and patients, but other studies contradicting this. Interview and audio-diary data highlights concerns around F1s preparedness for communicating with angry or upset patients and relatives, breaking bad news, communicating with the wider team (including interprofessionally) and handover communication. There was some evidence in the RR to suggest that graduates were unprepared for dealing with error and safety incidents and lack an understanding of how the clinical environment works. Interview and audio-diary data backs this up, adding that F1s are also unprepared for understanding financial aspects of healthcare. In terms of being personally prepared, RR, interview and audio diary evidence is mixed around graduates’ preparedness for identifying their own limitations, but all data points to graduates’ difficulties in the domain of time management. In terms of personal and situational demographic factors, the RR found that gender did not typically predict perceptions of preparedness, but graduates from more recent cohorts, graduate entry students, graduates from problem based learning courses, UK educated graduates and graduates with an integrated degree reported feeling better prepared. The longitudinal audio-diaries provided insights into the preparedness journey for F1s. There seems to be a general development in the direction of trainees feeling more confident and competent as they gain more experience. However, these developments were not necessarily linear as challenging circumstances (e.g. new specialty, new colleagues, lack of staffing) sometimes made them feel unprepared for situations where they had previously indicated preparedness.