Formatives Selbst- und Peer-Assessment im Unterricht peripher venöser Venenpunktion

Das Lernen einer Fertigkeit durch Demonstration und anschließendes Üben wird „Modeling“ genannt. Es basiert darauf, die Diskrepanz zwischen dem Soll-Zustand (Demonstration) und dem Ist-Zustand (Üben) zu erkennen und zu beheben. Dafür ist die exakte Analyse der eigenen Fertigkeiten beim Üben unentbehrlich. Entsprechend ist auch bekannt, dass formative Evaluationen wesentlich zum erfolgreichen Lernen beitragen. Wir haben deshalb im Kurs für periphere Venenpunktion im 3. Studienjahr formatives Selbst- und Peer-Assessment eingeführt. Die Struktur des Assessment entspricht einem DOPS (dircect observation of procedural skills). DOPS stammt aus dem Arbeitsplatz-basieren Assessment und beinhaltet die Beurteilung folgender Kriterien: Vorbereitung/Nachsorge, technische Fertigkeit, Asepsis/Sicherheit, klinische Urteilsfähigkeit, Organisation/Effizienz, professionelles Verhalten, Gesamteindruck. Diese Kriterien wurden für den Unterricht konkretisiert (z.B. Vorbereitung mit Beschriftung der Röhrchen, etc.) und den Studierenden als Merkblätter ausgeteilt. Die Studierenden beurteilten ihre eigene Performance bzw. die eines Kommilitonen, gaben sich Feedback und legten individuelle Lernziele zur Verbesserung fest. Dieses Vorgehen hat den Vorteil, dass sowohl der Übende, als auch der beobachtende Kommilitone, die optimale Ausführung der jeweiligen Tätigkeit reflektieren, welches für beide eine Möglichkeit zum Lernen bietet . Bei der Evaluation des Kurses wurden die Handouts mit den Kriterien der DOPS von Teilnehmern von 9 der 10 Gruppen positiv erwähnt. Im Rahmen eines Debriefing mit den studentischen Tutoren wurde jedoch kritisch angemerkt, dass der Prozess der formativen Selbst- und Fremdevaluation den Studierenden im 3. Studienjahr nicht vertraut war. Es war für die Teilnehmer schwierig konkretes Feedback zu geben und individuelle Lernziele festzulegen. Für das kommende Jahr planen wir in Bezug auf den Kurs folgendes: Die Kriterien der korrekten Durchführung einer Fertigkeit zu formulieren wird von den Teilnehmern als hilfreich empfunden und soll deshalb beibehalten werden. Die Studierenden, die dieses Jahr an dem Kurs teilnehmen, haben bereits ein Feedbacktraining absolviert. Der Kurs kann deshalb neu an Vorkenntnisse anknüpfen. Darüber hinaus soll der Prozess der Festlegung der individuellen Lernziele in der Schulung der studentischen Tutoren des Kurses mehr Gewicht erhalten, damit die Tutoren die Teilnehmer hier gezielt unterstützen können.

Approaches to Ensure Quality Standards for Standardized/ Simulated Patient Performance in High Stakes Objective Structured Clinical Exams (OSCEs)

Introduction To meet the quality standards for high-stakes OSCEs, it is necessary to ensure high quality standardized performance of the SPs involved.[1] One of the ways this can be assured is through the assessment of the quality of SPs` performance in training and during the assessment. There is some literature concerning validated instruments that have been used to assess SP performance in formative contexts but very little related to high stakes contexts.[2], [3], [4]. Content and structure During this workshop different approaches to quality control for SPs` performance, developed in medicine, pharmacy and nursing OSCEs, will be introduced. Participants will have the opportunity to use these approaches in simulated interactions. Advantages and disadvantages of these approaches will be discussed. Anticipated outcomes By the end of this session, participants will be able to discuss the rationale for quality control of SPs` performance in high stakes OSCEs, outline key factors in creating strategies for quality control, identify various strategies for assuring quality control, and reflect on applications to their own practice. Who should attend The workshop is designed for those interested in quality assurance of SP performance in high stakes OSCEs. Level All levels are welcome. References Adamo G. 2003. Simulated and standardized patients in OSCEs: achievements and challenges:1992-2003. Med Teach. 25(3), 262- 270. Wind LA, Van Dalen J, Muijtjens AM, Rethans JJ. Assessing simulated patients in an educational setting: the MaSP (Maastricht Assessment of Simulated Patients). Med Educ 2004, 38(1):39-44. Bouter S, van Weel-Baumgarten E, Bolhuis S. Construction and validation of the Nijmegen Evaluation of the Simulated Patient (NESP): Assessing Simulated Patients' ability to role-play and provide feedback to students. Acad Med: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 2012. May W, Fisher D, Souder D: Development of an instrument to measure the quality of standardized/simulated patient verbal feedback. Med Educ 2012, 2(1).

FAIR_OSCE – Feedback structure for assessment of interactive roleplay in Objective Structured Clinical Exams

Introduction Since the quality of patient portrayal of standardized patients (SPs) during an Objective Structured Clinical Exam (OSCE) has a major impact on the reliability and validity of the exam, quality control should be initiated. Literature about quality control of SPs’ performance focuses on feedback [1, 2] or completion of checklists [3, 4]. Since we did not find a published instrument meeting our needs for the assessment of patient portrayal, we developed such an instrument after being inspired by others [5] and used it in our high-stakes exam. Project description SP trainers from five medical faculties collected and prioritized quality criteria for patient portrayal. Items were revised twice, based on experiences during OSCEs. The final instrument contains 14 criteria for acting (i.e. adequate verbal and non-verbal expression) and standardization (i.e. verbatim delivery of the first sentence). All partners used the instrument during a high-stakes OSCE. SPs and trainers were introduced to the instrument. The tool was used in training (more than 100 observations) and during the exam (more than 250 observations). Outcome High quality of SPs’ patient portrayal during the exam was documented. More than 90% of SP performances were rated to be completely correct or sufficient. An increase in quality of performance between training and exam was noted. For example, the rate of completely correct reaction in medical tests increased from 88% to 95%. Together with 4% of sufficient performances these 95% add up to 99% of the reactions in medical tests meeting the standards of the exam. SP educators using the instrument reported an augmentation of SPs’ performance induced by the use of the instrument. Disadvantages mentioned were the high concentration needed to observe all criteria and the cumbersome handling of the paper-based forms. Discussion We were able to document a very high quality of SP performance in our exam. The data also indicates that our training is effective. We believe that the high concentration needed using the instrument is well invested, considering the observed enhancement of performance. The development of an iPad-based application for the form is planned to address the cumbersome handling of the paper.

Quality assurance of simulated patient feedback in communication training for fourth-year medical students

Introduction In our program, simulated patients (SPs) give feedback to medical students in the course of communication skills training. To ensure effective training, quality control of the SPs’ feedback should be implemented. At other institutions, medical students evaluate the SPs’ feedback for quality control (Bouter et al., 2012). Thinking about implementing quality control for SPs’ feedback in our program, we wondered whether the evaluation by students would result in the same scores as evaluation by experts. Methods Consultations simulated by 4th-year medical students with SPs were video taped including the SP’s feedback to the students (n=85). At the end of the training sessions students rated the SPs’ performance using a rating instrument called Bernese Assessment for Role-play and Feedback (BARF) containing 11 items concerning feedback quality. Additionally the videos were evaluated by 3 trained experts using the BARF. Results The experts showed a high interrater agreement when rating identical feedbacks (ICCunjust=0.953). Comparing the rating of students and experts, high agreement was found with regard to the following items: 1. The SP invited the student to reflect on the consultation first, Amin (= minimal agreement) 97% 2. The SP asked the student what he/she liked about the consultation, Amin = 88%. 3. The SP started with positive feedback, Amin = 91%. 4. The SP was comparing the student with other students, Amin = 92%. In contrast the following items showed differences between the rating of experts and students: 1. The SP used precise situations for feedback, Amax (=maximal agreement) 55%, Students rated 67 of SPs’ feedbacks to be perfect with regard to this item (highest rating on a 5 point Likert scale), while only 29 feedbacks were rated this way by the experts. 2. The SP gave precise suggestions for improvement, Amax 75%, 62 of SPs’ feedbacks obtained the highest rating from students, while only 44 of SPs’ feedbacks achieved the highest rating in the view of the experts. 3. The SP speaks about his/her role in the third person, Amax 60%. Students rated 77 feedbacks with the highest score, while experts judged only 43 feedbacks this way. Conclusion Although evaluation by the students was in agreement with that of experts concerning some items, students rated the SPs’ feedback more often with the optimal score than experts did. Moreover it seems difficult for students to notice when SPs talk about the role in the first instead of the third person. Since precision and talking about the role in the third person are important quality criteria of feedback, this result should be taken into account when thinking about students’ evaluation of SPs’ feedback for quality control. Bouter, S., E. van Weel-Baumgarten, and S. Bolhuis. 2012. Construction and Validation of the Nijmegen Evaluation of the Simulated Patient (NESP): Assessing Simulated Patients’ Ability to Role-Play and Provide Feedback to Students. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges

Functional lateralization of the anterior insula during feedback processing

Effective adaptive behavior rests on an appropriate understanding of how much responsibility we have over outcomes in the environment. This attribution of agency to ourselves or to an external event influences our behavioral and affective response to the outcomes. Despite its special importance to understanding human motivation and affect, the neural mechanisms involved in self-attributed rewards and punishments remain unclear. Previous evidence implicates the anterior insula (AI) in evaluating the consequences of our own actions. However, it is unclear if the AI has a general role in feedback evaluation (positive and negative) or plays a specific role during error processing. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging and a motion prediction task, we investigate neural responses to self- and externally attributed monetary gains and losses. We found that attribution effects vary according to the valence of feedback: significant valence × attribution interactions in the right AI, the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), the midbrain, and the right ventral putamen. Self-attributed losses were associated with increased activity in the midbrain, the ACC and the right AI, and negative BOLD response in the ventral putamen. However, higher BOLD activity to self-attributed feedback (losses and gains) was observed in the left AI, the thalamus, and the cerebellar vermis. These results suggest a functional lateralization of the AI. The right AI, together with the midbrain and the ACC, is mainly involved in processing the salience of the outcome, whereas the left is part of a cerebello-thalamic-cortical pathway involved in cognitive control processes important for subsequent behavioral adaptations.

Ovarian and uterine development and hormonal feedback mechanism in a 46 XX patient with CYP19A1 deficiency under low dose estrogen replacement.

Abstract Background: Aromatase deficiency may result in a complete block of estrogen synthesis because of the failure to convert androgens to estrogens. In females, this results in virilisation at birth, ovarian cysts in prepuberty and lack of pubertal development but virilisation, thereafter. Objective and methods: We studied the impact of oral 17β-estradiol treatment on ovarian and uterine development, and on LH/FSH and inhibin B during the long-term follow-up of a girl harboring compound heterozygote point mutations in the CYP19A1 gene. Results: In early childhood, low doses of oral 17β-estradiol were needed. During prepuberty treatment with slowly increasing doses of E2 resulted in normal uterine and almost normal development of ovarian volume, as well as number and size of follicles. Regarding hormonal feedback mechanisms, inhibin B levels were in the upper normal range during childhood and puberty. Low doses of estradiol did not suffice to achieve physiological gonadotropin levels in late prepuberty and puberty. However, when estradiol doses were further increased in late puberty levels of both FSH and LH declined with estradiol levels within normal range. Conclusion: Complete aromatase deficiency provides an excellent model of how ovarian and uterine development in relation to E2, LH, FSH and inhibin B feedback progresses from infancy to adolescence.

BDNF Val66Met polymorphism influence on striatal blood-level-dependent response to monetary feedback depends on valence and agency

Animal work implicates the brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) in function of the ventral striatum (VS), a region known for its role in processing valenced feedback. Recent evidence in humans shows that BDNF Val66Met polymorphism modulates VS activity in anticipation of monetary feedback. However, it remains unclear whether the polymorphism impacts the processing of self-attributed feedback differently from feedback attributed to an external agent. In this study, we emphasize the importance of the feedback attribution because agency is central to computational accounts of the striatum and cognitive accounts of valence processing. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging and a task, in which financial gains/losses are either attributable to performance (self-attributed, SA) or chance (externally-attributed, EA) to ask whether BDNF Val66Met polymorphism predicts VS activity. We found that BDNF Val66Met polymorphism influenced how feedback valence and agency information were combined in the VS and in the right inferior frontal junction (IFJ). Specifically, Met carriers' VS response to valenced feedback depended on agency information, while Val/Val carriers' VS response did not. This context-specific modulation of valence effectively amplified VS responses to SA losses in Met carriers. The IFJ response to SA losses also differentiated Val/Val from Met carriers. These results may point to a reduced allocation of attention and altered motivational salience to SA losses in Val/Val compared to Met carriers. Implications for major depressive disorder are discussed.

The H19/let-7 double-negative feedback loop contributes to glucose metabolism in muscle cells

The H19 lncRNA has been implicated in development and growth control and is associated with human genetic disorders and cancer. Acting as a molecular sponge, H19 inhibits microRNA (miRNA) let-7. Here we report that H19 is significantly decreased in muscle of human subjects with type-2 diabetes and insulin resistant rodents. This decrease leads to increased bioavailability of let-7, causing diminished expression of let-7 targets, which is recapitulated in vitro where H19 depletion results in impaired insulin signaling and decreased glucose uptake. Furthermore, acute hyperinsulinemia downregulates H19, a phenomenon that occurs through PI3K/AKT-dependent phosphorylation of the miRNA processing factor KSRP, which promotes biogenesis of let-7 and its mediated H19 destabilization. Our results reveal a previously undescribed double-negative feedback loop between sponge lncRNA and target miRNA that contributes to glucose regulation in muscle cells.