Unnecessarily delayed discharges from hospital of older people living with frailty can have negative consequences for their health and add significant costs to health services. We report on an ethnographic study at two English hospitals and their respective health and social care systems where we followed 37 patient journeys. The study aim was to understand why delays occur. Our findings indicate that working practices in the study hospitals may have inadvertently contributed to delays. While many pieces of patients’ clinical and social information were collected, recorded and accessed in different ways by different professionals, to facilitate a discharge, these pieces needed to be re-found, integrated and re-constructed. A key component of this process was information related to patients’ social, family and functional background. This was often missing, not accessed or perceived to be of low value compared to other more readily available clinical information. Patients’ re-construction was thus often incomplete, or insufficient to reduce the clinical and prognostic uncertainty associated with frailty and to manage risks inherent in older people's discharge. Where this key component was present and integrated into decision-making in multi-disciplinary team working, uncertainty and risk were managed more constructively and sometimes avoided an escalation of care needs.

Georg Simmel's 1910 essay on 'The Sociology of the Meal' argues that eating together at mealtimes creates invaluable opportunities for socialising while strengthening a group's social norms (Simmel, Frisby, & Featherstone, 1997; Symons, 1994) while bridging the public and private spheres of life (Simmel et al., 1997). In old age, having companions at mealtimes is associated with increased food intake, whereas those dining alone are at greater risk of malnutrition (Hetherington, Anderson, Norton,

Purpose: Ensuring equivalence of examiners’ judgements within distributed objective structured clinical exams (OSCEs) is key to both fairness and validity but is hampered by lack of cross-over in the performances which different groups of examiners observe. This study develops a novel method called Video-based Examiner Score Comparison and Adjustment (VESCA) using it to compare examiners scoring from different OSCE sites for the first time.Materials/ Methods: Within a summative 16 station OSCE, volunteer students were videoed on each station and all examiners invited to score station-specific comparator videos in addition to usual student scoring. Linkage provided through the video-scores enabled use of Many Facet Rasch Modelling (MFRM) to compare 1/ examiner-cohort and 2/ site effects on students’ scores.Results: Examiner-cohorts varied by 6.9% in the overall score allocated to students of the same ability. Whilst only a tiny difference was apparent between sites, examiner-cohort variability was greater in one site than the other. Adjusting student scores altered their rank position by up to 3 deciles.Conclusions: Whilst comparatively limited examiner participation rates may limit interpretation of score adjustment in this instance, this study demonstrates the feasibility of using VESCA for quality assurance purposes in large scale distributed OSCEs.

IntroductionObjective structured clinical exams (OSCEs) are a cornerstone of assessing the competence of trainee healthcare professionals, but have been criticised for (1) lacking authenticity, (2) variability in examiners’ judgements which can challenge assessment equivalence and (3) for limited diagnosticity of trainees’ focal strengths and weaknesses. In response, this study aims to investigate whether (1) sharing integrated-task OSCE stations across institutions can increase perceived authenticity, while (2) enhancing assessment equivalence by enabling comparison of the standard of examiners’ judgements between institutions using a novel methodology (video-based score comparison and adjustment (VESCA)) and (3) exploring the potential to develop more diagnostic signals from data on students’ performances.Methods and analysisThe study will use a complex intervention design, developing, implementing and sharing an integrated-task (research) OSCE across four UK medical schools. It will use VESCA to compare examiner scoring differences between groups of examiners and different sites, while studying how, why and for whom the shared OSCE and VESCA operate across participating schools. Quantitative analysis will use Many Facet Rasch Modelling to compare the influence of different examiners groups and sites on students’ scores, while the operation of the two interventions (shared integrated task OSCEs; VESCA) will be studied through the theory-driven method of Realist evaluation. Further exploratory analyses will examine diagnostic performance signals within data.Ethics and disseminationThe study will be extra to usual course requirements and all participation will be voluntary. We will uphold principles of informed consent, the right to withdraw, confidentiality with pseudonymity and strict data security. The study has received ethical approval from Keele University Research Ethics Committee. Findings will be academically published and will contribute to good practice guidance on (1) the use of VESCA and (2) sharing and use of integrated-task OSCE stations.