Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31993944›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2020

Development and Establishment of Initial Validity Evidence for a Novel Tool for Assessing Trainee Admission Notes.

Danielle E Weber, Justin D Held, Roman A Jandarov, Matthew Kelleher, Ben Kinnear, Dana Sall, Jennifer K O'Toole

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Danielle E WeberDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 231 Albert Sabin Way, ML 0535, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA. weber2de@ucmail.uc.edu.
Justin D HeldDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 231 Albert Sabin Way, ML 0535, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA.
Roman A JandarovDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 231 Albert Sabin Way, ML 0535, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA.
Matthew KelleherDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 231 Albert Sabin Way, ML 0535, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA.
Ben KinnearDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 231 Albert Sabin Way, ML 0535, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA.
Dana SallDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 231 Albert Sabin Way, ML 0535, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA.
Jennifer K O'TooleDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 231 Albert Sabin Way, ML 0535, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDocumentation is a key component of practice, yet few curricula have been published to teach trainees proper note construction. Additionally, a gold standard for assessing note quality does not exist, and no documentation assessment tools integrate with established competency-based frameworks.

objectiveTo develop and establish initial validity evidence for a novel tool that assesses key components of trainee admission notes and maps to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestone framework.

designUsing an iterative, consensus building process we developed the Admission Note Assessment Tool (ANAT). Pilot testing was performed with both the supervising attending and study team raters not involved in care of the patients. The finalized tool was piloted with attendings from other institutions.

participantsLocal experts participated in tool development and pilot testing. Additional attending physicians participated in pilot testing. MAIN MEASURES: Content, response process, and internal structure validity evidence was gathered using Messick's framework. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using percent agreement. KEY

resultsThe final tool consists of 16 checklist items and two global assessment items. Pilot testing demonstrated rater agreement of 72% to 100% for checklist items and 63% to 70% for global assessment items. Note assessment required an average of 12.3 min (SD 3.7). The study generated validity evidence in the domains of content, response process, and internal structure for use of the tool in rating admission notes.

conclusionsThe ANAT assesses individual components of a note, incorporates billing criteria, targets note "bloat," allows for narrative feedback, and provides global assessments mapped to the ACGME milestone framework. The ANAT can be used to assess admission notes by any attending and at any time after note completion with minimal rater training. The ANAT allows programs to implement routine note assessment for multiple functions with the use of a single tool.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementAccreditationEducation, Medical, GraduateHumansReproducibility of Resultsassessmentdocumentationelectronic health recordsevaluationmedical education

Identifiers

PMID31993944
PMCPMC7174454

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.