Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R C Fraser

Publications and source records attributed to R C Fraser.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

Student perceptions of a new integrated course in clinical methods for medical undergraduates.

CONTEXT: In line with recent General Medical Council recommendations a new, 8-week integrated course in clinical methods has been introduced into the undergraduate curriculum at Leicester University. OBJECTIVES: To describe student perceptions of the course and to identify areas for improvement. DESIGN: A questionnaire survey. SETTINGS: These were 50 general practices, three teaching hospitals and the academic Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care. SUBJECTS: A total of 180 third- and fourth-year medical students. RESULTS: The questionnaires were completed by 93% of students. The latter expressed higher satisfaction with practice teaching compared with hospital teaching, on a 5-point scale, with regard to questions on 'teaching content' (4.0 vs. 2.7, P < 0.0001) and 'teaching process' (4.1 vs. 2.7 P < 0.0001), which was reinforced by free text comments. Of the respondents, 92% agreed that their teaching practice had satisfied the required teaching timetable and 87% of students found their departmental tutor enthusiastic and stimulating. CONCLUSION: It is possible to deliver an integrated course in clinical methods, teaching generic clinical skills, in a mix of hospital and practice settings. Nevertheless there were substantial differences in student perceptions of the relative quality and impact of teaching in the two settings. This may be related to the more detailed programme of preparation of practice teachers and the greater extent to which practice teachers were required, and able, to create protected time for the teaching task. These differences should be minimized if hospital teachers undergo similar preparation for the teaching task and have similar levels of protected teaching time.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2000

Formative assessment of the consultation performance of medical students in the setting of general practice using a modified version of the leicester assessment package.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of a modified version of the Leicester Assessment Package (LAP) in the formative assessment of the consultation performance of medical students with particular reference to validity, inter-assessor reliability, acceptability, feasibility and educational impact. DESIGN: 180 third and fourth year Leicester medical students were directly observed consulting with six general practice patients and independently assessed by a pair of assessors. A total of 70 practice and 16 departmental assessors took part. Performance scores were subjected to generalizability analysis and students' views of the assessment were gathered by questionnaire. RESULTS: Four of the five categories of consultation performance (Interviewing and history taking, Patient management, Problem solving and Behaviour and relationship with patients) were assessed in over 99% of consultations and Physical examination was assessed in 94%. Seventy-six percent of assessors reported that the case mix was 'satisfactory' and 20% that it was 'borderline'; 85% of students believed it to have been satisfactory. Generalizability analysis indicates that two independent assessors assessing the performance of students across six consultations would achieve a reliability of 0.94 in making pass or fail decisions. Ninety-eight percent of students perceived that their particular strengths and weaknesses were correctly identified, 99% that they were given specific advice on how to improve their performance and 98% believed that the feedback they had received would have long-term benefit. CONCLUSIONS: The modified version of the LAP is valid, reliable and feasible in formative assessment of the consultation performance of medical students. Furthermore, almost all students found the process fair and believed it was likely to lead to improvements in their consultation performance. This approach may also be applicable to regulatory assessment as it accurately identifies students at the pass/fail margin.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed1999

Simulated surgery.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed1997

Is ownership more important than the scientific credibility of audit protocols? A survey of medical audit advisory groups.

BACKGROUND: It is commonly accepted that ownership is an important factor in determining the acceptability and use of protocols or guidelines. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine whether Medical Audit Advisory Groups (MAAGs) are prepared to accept and use audit protocols developed systematically by an external agency. METHOD: A postal questionnaire was sent to all 105 MAAG chairmen in England and Wales to seek their views on the external development of protocols, the inclusion of evidence-based prioritized criteria, the general design of the protocols issued by the Lilly Audit Centre and the numbers of practices reported by MAAGs as making use of at least one of the first four protocols issued. RESULTS: Ninety-five MAAGs (90%) responded. Of these, 86% were in favour of the external development of protocols, and 98% and 94%, respectively, found evidence-based and prioritized criteria valuable; 98% felt the overall design and content of the Audit Centre protocols were excellent or good. A total of 1018 practices was known to have made use of one of these protocols, 261 taking part in multi-practice audits organized by their MAAGs. CONCLUSION: Ownership is not necessarily more important than scientific credibility and/or perceived utility. Externally developed audit protocols containing evidence-based, prioritized review criteria are acceptable to MAAGs, which are prepared to recommend their use in practice. Accordingly, such systematically developed protocols offer a promising and practical method for improving clinical effectiveness. Further research is needed, however, to determine the comparative impact on standards of care of protocols and other methods such as clinical guidelines.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed1997

Effective audit in general practice: a method for systematically developing audit protocols containing evidence-based review criteria.

Though many general practitioners (GPs) now take part in audit, there is still concern about the extent to which participation in audit leads to improvements in practice. Improved methods are needed for the incorporation of research evidence into criteria for use in audit. In this paper, a six-stage systematic method is described for developing audit protocols containing prioritized evidence-based criteria. The stages are: selection of a topic, identification of key elements of care, focused literature reviews, prioritization of the criteria on the strength of the evidence and impact on outcome, preparation of full documentation, and peer review.

Clinical Protocols↗
PubMed1995

Development of review criteria: linking guidelines and assessment of quality.

Review criteria are designed to enable clinicians and others to assess care. However, there is no established method for developing criteria, and they are often confused with guidelines. Criteria should comprise measurable activities that are appropriate for the setting in which they are to be used. They should also be based on research evidence and prioritised according to the strength of that evidence and effect on outcome. Good criteria can be used to aid implementation of guidelines by providing a standard against which to monitor performance and enabling clinical audit.

Decision Making↗
PubMed1995

Use of vitamin B-12 in Leicestershire practices: a single topic audit led by a medical audit advisory group.

OBJECTIVE: To encourage active participation of Leicestershire general practitioners and their staff in audit; to examine the use of vitamin B-12 injections and to achieve a more appropriate use. DESIGN: Implementation of an agreed audit protocol, with central analysis and feedback of anonymous and aggregated data by a medical audit advisory group. SETTING: All 147 Leicestershire practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participation in the complete audit cycle, comparison of actual use of vitamin B-12 injections with agreed criteria of use, and assessment of improvement in use. RESULTS: 264 general practitioners (55% of all doctors from 49% of all Leicestershire practices) completed both phases of the audit cycle, and 321 (67%) completed phase 1 only. Twenty four (16%) practices failed to participate from the outset, and a further 58 (35%) dropped out at various stages. Only 10 of the 37 singlehanded practices completed the audit, although 34 initially agreed to participate. If singlehanded practices were excluded, 56% (61) of practices completed both phases of the audit cycle. In total 1714 patients received B-12 injections. Appropriate use increased from 62% in phase 1 to 72% in phase 2 of the audit; there was a 32% reduction in the number of patients inappropriately receiving B-12 (521 to 352), and the proportion of patients receiving B-12 at the correct frequency rose from 58% to 72%. The proportion of patients in whom all the diagnostic criteria for pernicious anaemia were established before treatment with B-12 was 27% in phase 1 and 28% in phase 2. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that single topic audits organised by a medical audit advisory group can encourage large numbers of general practitioners to participate and can bring about changes in behaviour resulting in improvements in standards of care. Nevertheless, advisory groups will need to devise strategies to encourage even higher levels of involvement, most particularly from singlehanded practices.

Anemia, Pernicious↗
PubMed1994

Consultation competence in general practice: testing the reliability of the Leicester assessment package.

BACKGROUND: An acceptable assessment must be both valid and reliable; the face validity of the Leicester assessment package has already been established. AIM: This study set out to test the reliability of the Leicester assessment package, and the factors influencing it, when used by multiple assessors to assess performance in general practice consultations. METHOD: Six randomly selected course organizer assessors simultaneously used the package to conduct independent assessments of the performance of five doctors of widely varying abilities in consultation with six simulated patients. The scores allocated were subjected to generalizability analysis. RESULTS: The mean scores allocated for consultation performance of individual doctors ranged from 51% to 70%, with the lower scores being allocated to the less experienced doctors. Scores of each assessor across the cases were examined for internal consistency and five of the six assessors consistently scored the doctors with an alpha coefficient of the minimum accepted level of 0.80 or greater. The other assessor had a consistency of only 0.22. Measurements of consistency within cases between markers indicated that the first case produced unreliable results (alpha coefficient 0.25) but all other cases were scored consistently. Two independent assessors scoring eight consultations are the requisite numbers to achieve acceptable levels of reliability in a formal assessment process; seven consultations produce the minimum acceptable generalizability coefficient of 0.80 plus the first 'non-counting' consultation. CONCLUSION: Required levels of reliability can be achieved when the package is used by multiple markers assessing the same consultations over a wide range of consultation performance. To achieve reliability only two hours of assessment time are required using the Leicester package compared with the previously regarded minimum of 32 hours. Although assessors can produce reliable scores with minimal training, intra-assessor reliability cannot be taken for granted and all assessors should be trained and calibrated before being sanctioned to conduct assessments, particularly for regulatory purposes. The Leicester assessment package has now been shown to be valid, reliable, feasible and easy to use in practice. It can, therefore, be recommended for use in both formative and summative assessment of consultation competence in general practice.

Communication↗
PubMed1994

Consultation competence in general practice: establishing the face validity of prioritized criteria in the Leicester assessment package.

AIM: This study set out to test the face validity of prioritized criteria of consultation competence in general practice as contained in the Leicester assessment package. METHOD: A questionnaire was sent to a geographically stratified random sample of 100 members of the United Kingdom Association of Course Organisers to seek their views on the categories, components and weightings contained in the Leicester assessment package and to determine the proportion of respondents who rejected or suggested a new category, component or weighting or reallocated components to other categories or amended weightings. Their views were sought on a six-point scale (strongly approve, approve, tend to approve, tend to disapprove, disapprove and strongly disapprove). RESULTS: There was a 73% response rate. Of the respondents 99% either strongly approved or approved of the overall set of categories of consultation competence. Only two respondents (3%) expressed any disapproval of individual categories. Thirty five of the 39 suggested components of consultation competence were supported by more than 80% of respondents. There was minimal support for excluding any categories or components of consultation competence, for moving any components to different categories or for the inclusion of new categories or components. Eighty eight per cent of respondents were in favour of the need to identify priorities between any agreed categories of consultation competence and 79% expressed approval of the suggested weightings. Although 42% of respondents indicated a wish for some alteration in weightings, the mean values for all consultation categories suggested by all respondents were almost identical to the original weightings in the Leicester package. CONCLUSION: The face validity of the categories and components of consultation competence contained in the Leicester assessment package has been established, and the suggested weightings of consultation categories have been validated. Consequently, the criteria contained in the Leicester package can be adopted with confidence as measures against which performance can be judged in formative or summative assessment of consultation performance in general practice.

Clinical Competence↗