ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Development and Pilot Evaluation of the ECALM Program: A Bedside Clinical Assessment Tool for First-Year Residents in the Emergency Department.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To describe the development and pilot evaluation of the ECALM program ("bedside clinical evaluation", in French), a formative bedside assessment framework designed for first-year residents during emergency department (ED) rotations. Methods: The ECALM program was developed prospectively in three stages, in accordance with Stufflebeam's "context, input, process, product" framework: (i) a baseline needs assessment survey, (ii) the development of standardized clinical scenarios via a structured expert consensus process, and (iii) a single-center pilot implementation. Six core clinical themes were selected (chest pain, abdominal pain, limb trauma, syncope, fever, and confusion), on the basis of epidemiological data from French EDs. A pilot study involving 12 first-year residents was conducted at Amiens University Medical Center's ED (Amiens, France). Each resident was evaluated with a single scenario, and each session included a structured briefing, passive bedside observation by paired, independent, senior evaluators, and a formative debriefing. Psychometric evaluation of the ECALM tool was based on inter-rater reliability, using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(2,1)) calculated using a two-way random-effects model for absolute agreement based on a single measurement, the weighted kappa, and a Bland-Altman analysis of inter-observer differences. Results: In the needs assessment (physician response rate: 27.1%), 97% of the participating senior practitioners reported that residents were insufficiently prepared for independent clinical tasks. During the pilot phase, the mean ± standard deviation total duration of an ECALM session was 43 ± 12 minutes. A preliminary analysis of the scores' consistency yielded an ICC(2,1) of 0.76, indicating good inter-rater agreement between independent evaluators. The weighted kappa (0.74) was consistent with the ICC results. A Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a mean inter-observer difference of only 1.25%, indicating negligible systematic measurement bias between evaluators. Qualitative feedback demonstrated high acceptability: all 12 residents expressed their satisfaction, reported an increased sense of psychological safety, and perceived the session to be a "one-on-one tutorial". Furthermore, ten residents (83.3%) spontaneously reported acquiring new knowledge during the debriefing phase. Conclusion: The results of this pilot study demonstrated the operational feasibility, high acceptability, and good preliminary inter-rater reliability of the ECALM program for the formative assessment of first-year residents. Although ECALM constitutes a promising, non-punitive approach for encouraging early clinical reasoning and self-assessment, further well-powered, multicenter validation is required to demonstrate the tool's external validity and long-term impact.
Indexed as
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.