Five Key Papers About Emergency Department Fall Evaluation: A Curated Collection for Emergency Physicians

The evaluation of patients who have experienced a fall has been an integral part of geriatric emergency care. All physicians who engage in the care of the geriatric population in acute settings need to familiarize themselves with the current literature on this topic. However, it can be challenging to navigate the large body of literature on this topic. The purpose of this article is to identify and summarize the key studies that can be helpful for faculty interested in an evidence-based fall evaluation.

The authors compiled a list of key papers on emergency department (ED) based upon a structured literature search supplemented with suggestions by key informants and an open call on social media; 32 studies on ED evaluation were identified. Our authorship group then engaged in a modified Delphi technique to develop consensus on the most important studies about fall evaluation for emergency physicians. This process eventually resulted in the selection of the top five articles on fall evaluation. Additionally, we summarize these studies with regard to their relevance to emergency medicine (EM) trainees and junior faculty.

Evaluation of older patients with a history of falls is a challenging but crucial component of EM training. We believe our review will be educational for junior and senior EM faculty to better understand these patients' care and to design an evidence-based practice.

Curated Collections for Educators: Five Key Papers about Receiving Feedback in Medical Education

Introduction Feedback is a complex, multi-component interaction that is essential for academic development and advancement. Successful feedback requires active involvement from both the giver and receiver. However, research and guidance on the subject mostly center on the role of the provider of feedback. But the receiver of feedback holds the true power in this interaction, choosing how to interpret the information and deciding whether or not to incorporate the feedback to instill behavioral change. In this article, the authors aim to summarize five key papers related to receiving feedback, in order to outline both relevant information for emerging clinician-educators and discern ways to use this information for faculty development. Methods In order to generate a list of key papers that describe the importance of receiving feedback, the authors conducted a consensus-building process informed by social media sources. Key articles on receiving feedback were aggregated through a literature search. This list was further augmented via an open call on Twitter for important papers regarding receiving feedback. Through these processes, a list of 43 papers was created on the topic of receiving feedback in medical education. After compiling this preliminary list, the authorship group engaged in a modified Delphi approach to build consensus on selecting papers that best described the process of receiving feedback. Results We present the group's five most highly rated papers on the topic of receiving feedback in medical education. These papers were deemed essential and have also been summarized based on their relevance to junior faculty members and faculty developers. Conclusion While giving and receiving feedback are both vital for growth and development, much of the research focuses solely on giving feedback. However, receiving feedback is equally, if not more, important for instilling change in the learner. We explore the power of receiving feedback in medical education through five key papers that analyze the subject. We believe these papers can serve as great learning resources for both junior faculty members and faculty developers. They can assist the junior faculty to cultivate the ability to receive feedback and also serve as resources to aid senior faculty in building faculty-development sessions.

An Exploration and Confirmation of the Factors Influencing Adoption of IoT-Based Wearable Fitness Trackers

In recent years, IoT (Internet of Things)-based smart devices have penetrated a wide range of markets, including connected health, smart home, and wearable devices. Among the IoT-based smart devices, wearable fitness trackers are the most widely diffused and adopted IoT based devices. Such devices can monitor or track the physical activity of the person wearing them. Although society has benefitted from the conveniences provided by IoT-based wearable fitness trackers, few studies have explored the factors influencing the adoption of such technology. Furthermore, one of the most prevalent issues nowadays is the large attrition rate of consumers no longer wearing their device. Consequently, this article aims to define an analytic framework that can be used to explore the factors that influence the adoption of IoT-based wearable fitness trackers. In this article, the constructs for evaluating these factors will be explored by reviewing extant studies and theories. Then, these constructs are further evaluated based on experts' consensus using the modified Delphi method. Based on the opinions of experts, the analytic framework for deriving an influence relationship map (IRM) is derived using the decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL). Finally, based on the IRM, the behaviors adopted by mass customers toward IoT-based wearable fitness trackers are confirmed using the partial least squares (PLS) structural equation model (SEM) approach. The proposed analytic framework that integrates the DEMATEL and PLS-SEM was verified as being a feasible research area by empirical validation that was based on opinions provided by both Taiwanese experts and mass customers. The proposed analytic method can be used in future studies of technology marketing and consumer behaviors.

Curated Collections for Educators: Eight Key Papers about Feedback in Medical Education

Feedback is an essential part of learning, growth, and academic success. Junior faculty members are often unfamiliar with the grounding literature that defines feedback. Many times they receive little education on providing and receiving feedback, resulting in unhelpful “feedback” for both learners and program leadership alike. This article aims to summarize eight key papers on feedback, to outline relevant information for emerging clinician educators, and identify ways to use these resources for the faculty development. 

In order to generate a list of key papers that describes the importance and significance of feedback, the authors conducted a consensus-building process to identify the top papers. In August and September, 2018, the 2018-2019 Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM) Faculty Incubator program discussed the topic of feedback in medical education. A number of papers on the topic was highlighted. This list of papers was further augmented using the suggestions and expertise of guest experts who are leaders in the field of medical education and feedback. The authors also used social media to conduct an open call on Twitter for important papers regarding feedback (utilizing #meded, #Feedback hashtags). Via this process, a list of 88 key papers was identified on the topic of feedback in medical education. After compiling these papers, the authorship group engaged in a modified Delphi approach to build consensus on the top eight papers on feedback. These papers were deemed essential by the authors and have been summarized with respect to their relevance to junior faculty members and to faculty developers.

In this manuscript, we present eight key papers addressing feedback in medical education with discussions and applications for junior faculty members and faculty developers. This list of articles that can serve to help junior clinician educators grow in their ability to give effective feedback and also serve as resources upon which senior faculty can design the faculty development sessions. 

Updating quality indicators for low-risk labour care in Japan using current clinical practice guidelines: a modified Delphi method

OBJECTIVES

Quality indicators are measurable elements widely used to assess the quality of care. They are often developed from the results of systematic reviews or clinical practice guidelines. These sources are regularly updated in line with new clinical evidence, but there are few articles on updating quality indicators based on clinical practice guidelines. This study aimed to update the quality indicators developed for low-risk labour care in Japan in 2012, mainly drawing on new or updated clinical practice guidelines, and making the process clearly visible and assessable.

DESIGN AND SETTING

We used a modified Delphi method for the update. The procedure included four steps: (1) updating the definition of low-risk labour; (2) reviewing the literature published between June 2012 and December 2015 using five guidelines and two quality indicator databases to extract potential candidate indicators; (3) formation of a multidisciplinary panel including mothers and (4) panel ratings (two rounds between February and April 2016) on the validity of the candidate indicators, and judging the validity of the previous quality indicators drawing on the new evidence.

PARTICIPANTS

A multidisciplinary panel of 13 clinicians, including obstetricians, paediatricians and midwives, plus 3 non-clinician mothers.

RESULTS

The literature review identified 276 new recommendations from 27 clinical practice guidelines including 2 published in Japan and 21 quality indicators. We developed 13 new candidate indicators from these sources and panel recommendations, 12 of which were approved by the multidisciplinary panel. The panel also accepted all 23 existing quality indicators as still valid, resulting in a total of 35 quality indicators for low-risk labour.

CONCLUSIONS

We successfully updated the quality indicators for low-risk labour care in Japan. The procedure developed may be useful for updating other quality indicators based on new clinical practice guidelines.

Curated Collections for Educators: Five Key Papers about Residents as Teachers Curriculum Development

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires residency programs to prepare residents to teach and assess medical students and other learners. In order to achieve this, many programs develop formal residents as teachers (RAT) curricula. Medical educators may seek the guidance of previously published literature during the development of RAT programs at their institutions. The authors sought to identify key articles published on the subject of RAT programs over the last 10 years. The authors utilized a formal literature search with the help of a medical librarian and identified additional articles from virtual discussions among the author group and an open call for articles on Twitter using the hashtag #MedEd. Virtual discussions occurred within an online community of practice, the Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM) Faculty Incubator. The lead author conducted a four-round modified Delphi process among the author group in order to narrow the broad article list to five key articles on RAT programs. The authors summarize each article and provide considerations for junior faculty as well as faculty developers. Curriculum development and program evaluation should utilize established frameworks and evidence-based approaches. The papers identified by this Delphi process will help faculty use best practices when creating or revising new RAT curriculum. In addition, faculty tasked with guiding junior faculty in this process or creating faculty development programs around curriculum development will find these articles to be a great resource for building content.

Curated Collection for Educators: Five Key Papers about the Flipped Classroom Methodology

The flipped classroom (FC) pedagogy is becoming increasingly popular in medical education due to its appeal to the millennial learner and potential benefits in knowledge acquisition. Despite its popularity and effectiveness, the FC educational method is not without challenges. In this article, we identify and summarize several key papers relevant to medical educators interested in exploring the FC teaching methodology.

The authors identified an extensive list of papers relevant to FC pedagogy via online discussions within the Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM) Faculty Incubator. This list was augmented by an open call on Twitter (utilizing the #meded, #FOAMed, and #flippedclassroom hashtags) yielding a list of 33 papers. We then conducted a three-round modified Delphi process within the authorship group, which included both junior and senior clinician educators, to identify the most impactful papers for educators interested in FC pedagogy.

The three-round modified Delphi process ranked all of the selected papers and selected the five most highly-rated papers for inclusion. The authorship group reviewed and summarized these papers with specific consideration given to their value to junior faculty educators and faculty developers interested in the flipped classroom approach.

The list of papers featured in this article serves as a key reading list for junior clinician educators and faculty developers interested in the flipped classroom technique. The associated commentaries contextualize the importance of these papers for medical educators aiming to optimize their understanding and implementation of the flipped classroom methodology in their teaching and through faculty development.

Developing, implementing and disseminating a core outcome set for neonatal medicine

BACKGROUND

In high resource settings, 1 in 10 newborn babies require admission to a neonatal unit. Research evaluating neonatal care involves recording and reporting many different outcomes and outcome measures. Such variation limits the usefulness of research as studies cannot be compared or combined. To address these limitations, we aim to develop, disseminate and implement a core outcome set for neonatal medicine.

METHODS

A steering group that includes parents and former patients, healthcare professionals and researchers has been formed to guide the development of the core outcome set. We will review neonatal trials systematically to identify previously reported outcomes. Additionally, we will specifically identify outcomes of importance to parents, former patients and healthcare professionals through a systematic review of qualitative studies. Outcomes identified will be entered into an international, multi-perspective eDelphi survey. All key stakeholders will be invited to participate. The Delphi method will encourage individual and group stakeholder consensus to identify a core outcome set. The core outcome set will be mapped to existing, routinely recorded data where these exist.

DISCUSSION

Use of a core set will ensure outcomes of importance to key stakeholders, including former patients and parents, are recorded and reported in a standard fashion in future research. Embedding the core outcome set within future clinical studies will extend the usefulness of research to inform practice, enhance patient care and ultimately improve outcomes. Using routinely recorded electronic data will facilitate implementation with minimal addition burden.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database: 842 (www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/842).

An instrument for evaluating clinical teaching in Japan: content validity and cultural sensitivity

BACKGROUND

Many instruments for evaluating clinical teaching have been developed but almost all in Western countries. None of these instruments have been validated for the Asian culture, and a literature search yielded no instruments that were developed specifically for that culture. A key element that influences content validity in developing instruments for evaluating the quality of teaching is culture. The aim of this study was to develop a culture-specific instrument with strong content validity for evaluating clinical teaching in initial medical postgraduate training in Japan.

METHODS

Based on data from a literature search and an earlier study we prepared a draft evaluation instrument. To ensure a good cultural fit of the instrument with the Asian context we conducted a modified Delphi procedure among three groups of stakeholders (five education experts, twelve clinical teachers and ten residents) to establish content validity, as this factor is particularly susceptible to cultural factors.

RESULTS

Two rounds of Delphi were conducted. Through the procedure, 52 prospective items were reworded, combined or eliminated, resulting in a 25-item instrument validated for the Japanese setting.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study describing the development and content validation of an instrument for evaluating clinical teaching specifically tailored to an East Asian setting. The instrument has similarities and differences compared with instruments of Western origin. Our findings suggest that designers of evaluation instruments should consider the probability that the content validity of instruments for evaluating clinical teachers can be influenced by cultural aspects.