ArticleAEM education and training2021
Assessment of Professionalism During the Emergency Medicine Clerkship Using the National Clinical Assessment Tool for Medical Students in Emergency Medicine.
Article in AEM education and training, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Multi-institutional Implementation of the National Clinical Assessment Tool in Emergency Medicine: Data From the First Year of Use.AEM education and training · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn 2016, a national consensus conference created the National Clinical Assessment Tool for Medical Students in Emergency Medicine (NCAT-EM), a standardized end-of-shift assessment tool. We report the first large-scale analysis of professionalism concerns collected from May 2017 through December 2018 by a multisite consortium using the NCAT-EM. Our primary objective was to characterize the nature and frequency of professionalism concerns. Our secondary objective was to identify characteristics associated with giving or receiving a professionalism flag.
methodsThe consortium database includes assessments for all students on EM clerkships at participating sites. This report presents descriptive statistics about the frequency of different flags, the distribution of flags among different student categories, assessor and student characteristics, and distribution of global assessment scores on assessments citing concerns. We used Fisher's exact test to look for associations between the frequency of professionalism flags and the sex of the students and assessors and across student categories. We used logistic regression to look for relationships between professionalism concerns and global assessment scores as well as intent to apply in EM.
resultsWe screened 6,768 assessments of 784 students by 719 assessors from 13 sites. After excluding assessments without flags and assessments with apparent data entry errors, we analyzed 57 (0.8%) assessments containing 79 flags. The most frequent flags were punctuality (25/79, 31.6%) and initiative (20/79, 25.3%). Few students received flags (42/784, 5.4%). Few assessors flagged concerns (41/719, 5.7%). We detected no correlation between the frequency of flags and whether a student was applying in EM or between the sex of students and assessors. Global scores of lower one-third appeared more often in assessments with a flag (30/57, 52.6% vs. 233/6,711, 3.5%).
conclusionsOnly 5.4% of students received flags. Punctuality and initiative accounted for a majority of citations. Professionalism flags correlated strongly with lower global assessment scores.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.