BACKGROUND: Assessment of undergraduate students using assessment instruments in the clinical setting is known to be complex. The aim of this study was therefore to examine whether two different assessment instruments, containing learning objectives (LO`s) with similar content, results in similar assessments by the clinical supervisors and to explore clinical supervisors\' experiences of assessment regarding the two different assessment instruments.
METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used. Four simulated care encounter scenarios were evaluated by 50 supervisors using two different assessment instruments. 28 follow-up interviews were conducted. Descriptive statistics and logistic binary regression were used for quantitative data analysis, along with qualitative thematic analysis of interview data.
RESULTS: While significant differences were observed within the assessment instruments, the differences were consistent between the two instruments, indicating that the quality of the assessment instruments were considered equivalent. Supervisors noted that the relationship between the students and supervisors could introduce subjectivity in the assessments and that working in groups of supervisors could be advantageous. In terms of formative assessments, the Likert scale was considered a useful tool for evaluating learning objectives. However, supervisors had different views on grading scales and the need for clear definitions. The supervisors concluded that a complicated assessment instrument led to limited very-day usage and did not facilitate formative feedback. Furthermore, supervisors discussed how their experiences influenced the use of the assessment instruments, which resulted in different descriptions of the experience. These differences led to a discussion of the need of supervisor teams to enhance the validity of assessments.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings showed that there were no significant differences in pass/fail gradings using the two different assessment instruments. The quantitative data suggests that supervisors struggled with subjectivity, phrasing, and definitions of the LO´s and the scales used in both instruments. This resulted in arbitrary assessments that were time-consuming and resulted in limited usage in the day-to-day assessment. To mitigate the subjectivity, supervisors suggested working in teams and conducting multiple assessments over time to increase assessment validity.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the need for an epilepsy educational curriculum for primary healthcare providers formulated by the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) and the importance attributed to its competencies by epilepsy specialists and primary care providers and across country-income settings.
METHODS: The ILAE primary care epilepsy curriculum was translated to five languages. A structured questionnaire assessing the importance of its 26 curricular competencies was posted online and publicized widely to an international community. Respondents included epilepsy specialists, primary care providers, and others from three World Bank country-income categories. Responses from different groups were compared with univariate and ordinal logistic regression analyses.
RESULTS: Of 785 respondents, 60% noted that a primary care epilepsy curriculum did not exist or they were unaware of one in their country. Median ranks of importance for all competencies were high (very important to extremely important) in the entire sample and across different groups. Fewer primary care providers than specialists rated the following competencies as extremely important: definition of epilepsy (p = .03), recognition of seizure mimics (p = .02), interpretation of test results for epilepsy care (p = .001), identification of drug-resistant epilepsy (0.005) and management of psychiatric comorbidities (0.05). Likewise, fewer respondents from LMICs in comparison to UMICs rated 15 competencies as extremely important.
CONCLUSIONS: The survey underscores the unmet need for an epilepsy curriculum in primary care and the relevance of its competencies across different vocational and socioeconomic settings. Differences across vocational and country income groups indicate that educational packages should be developed and adapted to needs in different settings.

A first-year foundational science course grew beyond its scope. Revitalization of the course was driven by second and third-year medical students, who created new learning objectives and edited cases that were well-received by course facilitators and students. The students\' role in the course revitalization is a novel approach.

Alignment studies can offer valuable insights to educators about the effectiveness of the course objectives, assessments, and teaching. In this particular study, the aim was to determine the extent to which teacher-made tests aligned with the learning objectives of natural science subjects. The study included a total of 180 learning objectives (46 from Biology, 71 from Chemistry, and 63 from Physics) and 88 test items (30 from Biology, 30 from Chemistry, and 28 from Physics). Bloom\'s revised taxonomy was used to identify, organize, and code the objectives and test items. Porter\'s alignment index was used to analyze the data, allowing for determining the degree of alignment between tests and learning objectives. The results showed that the overall alignment between teacher-made tests with course objectives was 45 % for Biology, 46 % for Chemistry, and 62 % for Physics. The study also found that a dependable degree of alignment was not yet established between learning objectives and tests. Therefore, it was suggested that teachers should use assessment procedures and blueprints that consider higher-order cognitive levels and expected learning objectives. Further investigations are also required to determine whether students are meeting the expected learning objectives and moving to the next grade level.

BACKGROUND: Modern medicine becomes more dependent on radiologic imaging techniques. Over the past decade, radiology has also gained more attention in the medical curricula. However, little is known with regard to students\' perspectives on this subject. Therefore, this study aims to gain insight into the thoughts and ideas of medical students and junior doctors on radiology education in medical curricula.
METHODS: A qualitative, descriptive study was carried out at one medical university in the Netherlands. Participants were recruited on social media and were interviewed following a predefined topic list. The constant comparative method was applied in order to include new questions when unexpected topics arose during the interviews. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded. Codes were organized into categories and themes by discussion between researchers.
RESULTS: Fifteen participants (nine junior doctors and six students) agreed to join. From the coded interviews, four themes derived from fifteen categories arose: (1) The added value of radiology education in medical curricula, (2) Indispensable knowledge on radiology, (3) Organization of radiology education and (4) Promising educational innovations for the radiology curriculum.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that medical students and junior doctors value radiology education. It provides insights in educational topics and forms for educational improvement for radiology educators.

BACKGROUND: Medical informatics programs cover a variety of topics.
OBJECTIVE: To test the utility of the GMDS medical informatics competency catalog in comparing programs by developing study profiles.
METHODS: Coverage of 234 competencies is recorded and visualized in a spider diagram.
RESULTS: Spider diagrams allow visualizing various study profiles.
CONCLUSIONS: The GMDS catalog seems useful for comparing medical informatics study programs, e.g., for interested students, employers, or accreditation reviewers.

BACKGROUND: Escape rooms are increasingly used in medical education as a complementary learning technique or even alternative to traditional educational approaches. Few studies focus on debriefing following medical escape rooms and how escape rooms can be used to achieve pre-defined learning objectives. Evaluating the use of narrow learning objectives may increase the depth of reflections and transform an engaging team event into an effective learning opportunity. This study aimed to explore participants\' experiences and perceived learning outcomes of narrow learning objectives in a medical escape room with debriefing.
METHODS: In this explorative, qualitative study, participants saw a video lecture, participated in an escape room experience, and in a following debriefing. Throughout this learning session, the learning objectives concerned \"exchange of information\" and are therefore relatively narrow. Participants then participated in a semi-structured focus group interview and completed a demographic questionnaire. Participants were volunteer final-year medical students. Focus group interview recordings were transcribed and analysed using systematic text condensation.
RESULTS: Thirty-two students in eight groups completed the study. Five themes were described in the analysis of the focus group interviews: Experience with the narrow learning objectives, topics discussed in the debriefing, learning mechanisms, learning outcomes concerning exchange of information and influences of the learning approach.
CONCLUSIONS: Narrow learning objectives and structured debriefing seem to increase perceived learning depth of medical escape room sessions. Using semi-structured debriefing still allows for discussions of other elements relevant to the students.
RESULTS: Clinical.trials ID NCT04783259.

The Need of the LM content in Medical undergraduate curriculum was imperative based on the mortality and morbidity statistics in Pakistan along with lack of LM training and unhealthy lifestyle of physicians themselves. Aims and Objectives for integrating LM content were designed including cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains of learning. while embedding LM content in an integrated modular system, every step was technically monitored and matched with the academic year, teaching methodology and importance of the topic. LM content was integrated in every educational activity from first to final year by adding or modifying LM learning objectives. The alignment of learning domains was in accordance with the teaching and assessment strategies. Teaching methods chosen were according to the designed learning objectives and phase of curriculum. LM content was assessed in formative and summative assessment through, single best and case cluster MCQs, reflections, OSPE. LM curriculum was communicated to teaching faculty and medical students through academic calendar, module guides and timetables. It was shared on Moodle and Teams. Educational environment incorporated both physical and virtual learning and has been supportive of lifestyle practices among medical students. The entire process of embedding LM content in medical education has been multifaceted. Different committees were formed including Steering, Core, implementation, and Evaluation Committees. Students were part of each committee. This write-up describes the evidence-based approach used to embed LM content in Undergraduate Medical Education and offers guidance to other undergraduate medical colleges that may wish to implement lifestyle medicine content.

Medical students must be adept at critical thinking to successfully meet the learning objectives of their preclinical coursework. To encourage student success on assessments, the course director of a first-year medical physiology course emphasized the use of learning objectives that were explicitly aligned with formative assessments in class. The course director introduced the physiology discipline, learning objectives, and evidence-based methods of studying to students on the first day of class. Thereafter, class sessions started with a review of the learning objectives for that session and included active learning opportunities such as retrieval practice. The instructor provided short answer formative assessments aligned with the learning objectives, intended to help the students apply and integrate the concepts. Midsemester, students received a link to an online survey with questions on studying habits, class attendance, and student engagement. After finals, students were invited to participate in focus groups about their class experience. A qualitative researcher moderated focus groups, recorded responses, and analyzed the narrative data. Of 175 students, 95 submitted anonymous online surveys. Student engagement was significantly correlated with in-person class attendance (r = 0.26, T = 2.5, P = 0.01) and the completion of open-ended formative assessments (r = 0.33, T = 3.3, P = 0.001). Focus groups were held via videoconference. From the class, 14 students participated in 4 focus groups; focus group participants were mostly women (11 of 14) and mostly in-class attendees (13 of 14). The students in this sample valued critical thinking but misunderstood expectations on exams and few students used learning objectives to study.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We introduced formative assessments and study techniques to first-year medical students in a physiology course. Mastery of learning objectives was emphasized as the key to success. We asked how they studied physiology through an anonymous online survey and focus group interviews. The students enjoyed physiology but had difficulty with exam expectations. Helping students use learning objectives to guide their study may lead to improved exam scores. It may also help administrators meet their curriculum goals.

UNASSIGNED: Chalk talks are effective teaching tools in the clinical setting. However, data on optimal strategies for teaching medical educators how to develop and deliver them are limited. We designed and implemented two 50-minute workshops to help subspecialty fellows across GME create and deliver a chalk talk.
UNASSIGNED: The first workshop comprised a demonstration of an effective chalk talk and a discussion of best practices for creating chalk talks; the second was a practice session where fellows presented their chalk talks and received feedback from faculty and peers. We evaluated pre- and postworkshop confidence in the ability to create and deliver a chalk talk and develop learning objectives. Secondary outcomes were faculty and peer evaluations of the chalk talks.
UNASSIGNED: Eighteen of 33 participants (54% response rate) completed both pre- and postsession surveys. Fellows reported improved confidence in their ability to create a chalk talk (22% vs. 83%, p < .001), deliver a chalk talk (17% vs. 83%, p < .001), and develop well-written learning objectives (11% vs. 83%, p < .001). After the workshop, participants were more likely to correctly identify a chalk talk that made use of an advanced organizer (67% vs. 89%, p < .05). Thirty-eight faculty and peers completed feedback evaluations of participants\' chalk talks; most rated fellows\' chalk talks highly in domains of content, delivery, design, learning objectives, and engagement.
UNASSIGNED: The incorporation of these workshop within a course on medical education can effectively develop clinical teaching skills among subspecialty fellows in GME.