Conectar
Communication skills assessment (CSA) is essential for ensuring competency, guiding educational practices and safeguarding regulatory compliance in health professions education (HPE). However, there appears to be heterogeneity in the reporting of validity evidence from CSA methods across the health profession that complicates our interpretation of the quality of assessment methods. Our objective was to map reliability and validity evidence from scores of CSA methods that have been reported in HPE.
Scoping review.
MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, CAB Abstracts and Scopus databases were searched up to March 2024.
We included studies, available in English, that reported validity evidence (content-related, internal structure, relationship with other variables, response processes and consequences) for CSA methods in HPE. There were no restrictions related to date of publication.
Two independent reviewers completed data extraction and assessed study quality using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. Data were reported using descriptive analysis (mean, median, range).
A total of 146 eligible studies were identified, including 98 394 participants. Most studies were conducted in human medicine (124 studies) and participants were mostly undergraduate students (85 studies). Performance-based, simulated, inperson CSA was most prevalent, comprising 115 studies, of which 68 studies were objective structured clinical examination-based. Other types of methods that were reported were workplace-based assessment; asynchronous, video-based assessment; knowledge-based assessment and performance-based, simulated, virtual assessment. Included studies used a diverse range of communications skills frameworks, rating scales and raters. Internal structure was the most reported source of validity evidence (130 studies (90%), followed by content-related (108 studies (74%), relationships with other variables (86 studies (59%), response processes (15 studies (10%) and consequences (16 studies (11%).
This scoping review identified gaps in the sources of validity evidence related to assessment method that have been used to support the use of CSA methods. These gaps could be addressed by studies explicitly defining the communication skill construct(s) assessed, clarifying the validity source(s) reported and defining the intended purpose and use of the scores (ie, for learning and feedback, for decision making purposes). Our review provides a map where targeted CSA development and support are needed. Limitations of the evidence come from score interpretation being constrained by the heterogeneity of the definition of communication skills across the health professions and the reporting quality of the studies.
To investigate what works when using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), for whom, in what contexts, and why in four Value-Based Healthcare (VBHC) programmes.
Realist evaluation.
Evaluation of Heart Failure, Parkinson's Disease, Epilepsy and Cataract surgery programmes using data from a scoping review, documentary analysis, questionnaires, quantitative routinely collected data and semi-structured interviews with staff, patients and carers (July 2022–August 2023). Programme theories and logic models were developed, tested and refined.
We conducted 105 interviews (67 patients, 21 carers and 17 staff) and collected data from 230 patients (66 Epilepsy, 140 Heart Failure and 24 Parkinson's Disease) and 14 staff via questionnaires. Clinicians used PROMs data to regularly monitor patients with Heart Failure and Epilepsy, which resulted in better triage and tailoring treatment, prioritisation of access based on the urgency of need, and facilitation of referral to relevant professionals. In Heart Failure, this further resulted in a more efficient provision of care and better use of resources, care closer to home, improved health outcomes (e.g., better symptom management) and service redesign. The same was not observed in Epilepsy, as patients who required mental health treatment had to be referred, but they were not always able to access specialist services. PROMs were discontinued in Cataract surgery services mainly due to the lack of integrated IT systems, which caused an increased workload and staff resistance. In Parkinson's Disease, patients were asked to complete PROMs even though the information was not consistently being used.
Findings challenge the orthodoxy that implementing PROMs is universally good and brings about real improvements in patient outcomes in a VBHC context. PROMs are generally ill-suited for long-term use with patients in routine care without further adaptation. Greater staff and patient involvement are imperative to enhance the acceptability and relevance of the programmes.
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures can improve care when embedded in well-supported systems. Implementation must be realistic, involve staff and patients, and be underpinned by clear leadership and robust digital infrastructure. Co-designed patient-facing tools can improve accessibility and engagement.
What problem did the study address? There is limited evidence on how Patient-Reported Outcome Measures function across different routine healthcare contexts. What were the main findings? Patient-Reported Outcome Measures improved care in Heart Failure but not in other services, largely due to contextual barriers. Where and on whom will the research have an impact? Findings are relevant for clinicians, service designers, and policymakers seeking to implement meaningful person-centred outcome measurement in long-term conditions.
We adhered to Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards II guidance and to the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public.
The study was developed alongside a wide range of patient and public stakeholders involved in the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board Value-Based Healthcare programme, third sector and specific individuals and groups representing the four included services (i.e., St. David's Hospice Care, British Heart Foundation, Digital Communities Wales, Epilepsy Action, Digital Communities Wales, Parkinson's UK Cymru, Race Equality First, Aneurin Bevan Community Health Council, Value- Based Healthcare Patient Reference Group and Wales Council of the Blind). A total of 10 virtual meetings were strategically planned to address gaps, assist in the interpretation of findings, and ensure that outcomes were pertinent and accessible to the specific needs and circumstances of under-represented or vulnerable groups.
To describe symptom patterns in first-time mothers through 3 months postpartum.
Longitudinal, descriptive correlational.
Secondary analysis of data from a randomised clinical trial of first-time mothers. Symptoms were assessed at 1, 2 and 3 months postpartum using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale for dimensions of 32 symptoms.
New mothers (n = 114) reported an average of 7.0 (SD 4.7) symptoms at 1 month, decreasing to 5.3 (SD 4.3) at 3 months. Physical symptoms decreased to the greatest degree. Symptoms reported by over 33% of participants included lack of energy, worrying, pain, difficulty sleeping or concentrating and feeling irritable, sad or drowsy. The most distressing were lack of energy, feeling irritable, pain, nervousness and hair loss. Symptoms did not differ by type of birth or infant feeding. Older mothers (≥ 35 years) had significantly more symptoms and distress than younger mothers.
Most symptoms improved over time, yet some were still prevalent at 3 months. Symptoms not appraised as particularly distressing may still be of clinical concern for safety reasons. Frequent postpartum assessments and interventions are important, particularly for older mothers.
In the first 3 months, postpartum symptoms not perceived as distressing may lead to adverse health outcomes. These symptoms may threaten maternal–infant welfare beyond the first 3 months postpartum. Older first-time mothers merit particular attention by clinicians.
The authors complied with STROBE reporting guidelines.
No patient or public contribution.
Commentary on: Autism intervention meta-analysis of early childhood studies (Project AIM): updated systematic review and secondary analysis - Sandbank et al 2023
Implications for practice and research Nurses may consider advocating for autistic clients by recommending naturalistic developmental behavioural intervention and other early interventions when appropriate and providing multidisciplinary care in collaboration with interventionists. More robust research methods are needed, including randomised controlled trials of early interventions for autism that assess adverse effects to ensure benefits outweigh any risks.
Behaviourists pioneered early intervention for autism in the 1960s using operant learning principles. The intervention was dubbed applied behavioural analysis (ABA). In the 1990s, naturalistic developmental behavioural intervention (NDBI) expanded behaviour intervention to include children as active learners with an emphasis on developmentally appropriate implementation using natural contingencies. Currently, there is a plethora of early intervention options but it is unclear which interventions...
The concept of health equity by design encompasses a multifaceted approach that integrates actions aimed at eliminating biased, unjust, and correctable differences among groups of people as a fundamental element in the design of algorithms. As algorithmic tools are increasingly integrated into clinical practice at multiple levels, nurses are uniquely positioned to address challenges posed by the historical marginalization of minority groups and its intersections with the use of “big data” in healthcare settings; however, a coherent framework is needed to ensure that nurses receive appropriate training in these domains and are equipped to act effectively.
We introduce the Bias Elimination for Fair AI in Healthcare (BE FAIR) framework, a comprehensive strategic approach that incorporates principles of health equity by design, for nurses to employ when seeking to mitigate bias and prevent discriminatory practices arising from the use of clinical algorithms in healthcare. By using examples from a “real-world” AI governance framework, we aim to initiate a wider discourse on equipping nurses with the skills needed to champion the BE FAIR initiative.
Drawing on principles recently articulated by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, we conducted a critical examination of the concept of health equity by design. We also reviewed recent literature describing the risks of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in healthcare as well as their potential for advancing health equity. Building on this context, we describe the BE FAIR framework, which has the potential to enable nurses to take a leadership role within health systems by implementing a governance structure to oversee the fairness and quality of clinical algorithms. We then examine leading frameworks for promoting health equity to inform the operationalization of BE FAIR within a local AI governance framework.
The application of the BE FAIR framework within the context of a working governance system for clinical AI technologies demonstrates how nurses can leverage their expertise to support the development and deployment of clinical algorithms, mitigating risks such as bias and promoting ethical, high-quality care powered by big data and AI technologies.
As health systems learn how well-intentioned clinical algorithms can potentially perpetuate health disparities, we have an opportunity and an obligation to do better. New efforts empowering nurses to advocate for BE FAIR, involving them in AI governance, data collection methods, and the evaluation of tools intended to reduce bias, mark important steps in achieving equitable healthcare for all.
FreshRSS 