Purpose This review aimed to synthesise some of the extant work on the use of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) for postgraduate physicians, to assess the quality of the work and provide direction for future research and practice. Method Systematic searches were conducted within five electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO and CINAHL) in September 2018. Reference lists, Google Scholar and Google were also searched. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD). Results In total, 49 studies were included, classified as Development of EPAs (n = 37; 76% of total included), Implementation and/or assessment of EPAs (n = 10; 20%), or both (n = 2; 4%). EPAs were described for numerous specialties, including internal medicine (n = 14; 36%), paediatrics (n = 8; 21%) and psychiatry (n = 4; 10%). Of the development studies, 92% utilised more than one method to generate EPAs. The two most commonly used methods were developing initial EPAs in a working group, (n = 27; 69%) and revising through deliberation (n = 21; 54%). Development papers were of variable quality (mean QATSDD score = 20, range 6–41). Implementation and assessment studies utilised methods that included observing trainee performance (n = 6; 50%) and enrolling trainees in competency‐based curricula, which included EPAs (n = 4; 33%). The methodological quality of these implementation studies varied (mean QATSDD score = 19.5, range = 6–32). Conclusions This review highlighted a need for: (i) consideration of best practice guidelines for EPA development; (ii) focus on the methodological quality of research on EPA development and of EPAs, and (iii) further work investigating the implementation of EPAs in the curriculum.
This review aimed to synthesise the literature describing interventions to improve resilience among physicians, to evaluate the quality of this research and to outline the type and efficacy of interventions implemented. Searches were conducted in April 2017 using five electronic databases. Reference lists of included studies and existing review papers were screened. English language, peer-reviewed studies evaluating interventions to improve physician resilience were included. Data were extracted on setting, design, participant and intervention characteristics and outcomes. Methodological quality was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist. Twenty-two studies were included. Methodological quality was low to moderate. The most frequently employed interventional strategies were psychosocial skills training and mindfulness training. Effect sizes were heterogeneous. Methodologically rigorous research is required to establish best practice in improving resilience among physicians and to better consider how healthcare settings should be considered within interventions.
Objectives: To synthesize the literature describing compliance with WHO hand hygiene (HH) guidelines in Intensive Care Units (ICUs), to evaluate the quality of extant research, and to examine differences in compliance rates across geographical regions, ICU types, and healthcare worker groups, observation methods, and Moments (indications) of HH. Data sources: Electronic searches were conducted in August 2018 using Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Embase, and Web of Science. Reference lists of included studies and related review articles were also screened. Study selection: English-language, peer-reviewed studies measuring HH compliance by healthcare workers in an ICU setting using direct observation guided by the WHO's 'Five Moments of Hand Hygiene', published since 2009, were included. Data extraction: Information was extracted on study location, research design, type of ICU, healthcare workers, measurement procedures, and compliance rates. Data synthesis: Sixty-one studies were included. Most were conducted in high-income countries (60.7%) and in adult ICUs (85.2%). Mean HH compliance was 59.6%. Compliance rates appeared to differ by geographic region (high-income countries 64.5%, low-income countries 9.1%), type of ICU (neonatal 67.0%, pediatric 41.2%, adult 58.2%), and type of healthcare worker (nursing staff 43.4%, physicians 32.6%, other staff 53.8%). Conclusions: Mean HH compliance appears notably lower than international targets. The data collated may offer useful benchmarks for those evaluating, and seeking to improve, hand hygiene compliance in ICUs internationally.
Context Gender bias has been observed in the authorship and editorship of academic literature in varied medical specialties. This is important as peer‐reviewed publications, and participation on editorial boards, are closely related to academic productivity and advancement. The aim of this paper was to examine whether gender‐based disparities in authorship and editorship exist in leading medical education journals. Methods A retrospective bibliometric review was conducted of articles published at eight different time‐points across a 49‐year time period (specifically: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2019) in four leading medical education journals (Academic Medicine, BMC Medical Education, Medical Education and Medical Teacher). First and last (as a proxy for senior) author gender was determined for each article, along with the gender of the 2019 editorial board members of each journal. Chi‐square tests for trend were conducted to examine variations in author gender distributions over time, and binomial tests of proportions were conducted to examine gender distributions in authorship and editorship in 2019. Logistic regression analyses were carried out to determine factors that predicted the odds of authorship by women. Results A total of 5749 articles were included. A significant trend of increased women as first and last authors was observed across all journals. The percentage of women first authors increased from 6.6% in 1970 to 53.7% in 2019 (P < .001), and women last authors increased from 9.5% in 1970 to 46% in 2019 (P < .001). Overall, the distributions of women first authors, last authors and editorial board members in 2019 indicated greater gender parity than many other fields of medicine. Conclusions Positive progress towards gender parity has been made in medical education scholarship. However, future research and efforts are needed to ensure the continued participation, and highlighting, of women in medical education scholarship and to address other factors which may hinder academic advancement for women in this field.
Objective: To synthesize the literature describing interventions to improve hand hygiene (HH) in Intensive Care Units (ICUs), to evaluate the quality of the extant research, and to outline the type, and efficacy, of interventions described.Data sources: Systematic searches were conducted in November 2016 using five electronic databases: Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Embase, and Web of Science. Additionally, the reference lists of included studies and existing review papers were screened.Study selection: English language, peer-reviewed studies that evaluated an intervention to improve HH in an adult ICU setting, and reported HH compliance rates collected via observation, were included.Data extraction: Data were extracted on the setting, participant characteristics, experimental design, HH measurement, intervention characteristics and outcomes. Interventional components were categorized using the Behavior Change Wheel. Methodological quality was examined using the Downs and Black Checklist.Data synthesis: Thirty-eight studies were included. The methodological quality of studies was poor, with studies scoring a mean of 8.6 out of 24 (SD=2.7). Over 90% of studies implemented a bundled intervention. The most frequently employed interventional strategies were Education (78.9%), Enablement (71.1%), Training (68.4%), Environmental Restructuring (65.8%), and Persuasion (65.8%). Intervention outcomes were variable with a mean relative percentage change of 94.7% (SD=195.7; range: 4.3-1155.4%) from pre-to post-intervention.Conclusions: This review demonstrates that best practice for improving HH in ICUs remains unestablished. Future research employing rigorous experimental designs, careful statistical analysis, and clearly described interventions is important.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.