The ethics objective structured clinical examination

Objective: To develop objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) stations to assess the ability of physicians to address selected clinical-ethical situations, and to evaluate inter-rater agreement in these stations. Design: Two ten-minute OSCE stations were developed using videotaped encounters between attending physicians and standardized patients. One scenario involved a daughter requesting a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order for her competent mother without the mother’s knowledge; the other involved a competent elderly woman requesting not to be re-intubated if her congestive heart failure worsened. The scenarios were evaluated using foreign medical graduates taking an OSCE. Each candidate was scored on his or her interaction with a standardized patient in the two OSCE stations by two independent observers. Participants: Eight attending physicians from the Division of General Internal Medicine at the Toronto Hospital were used to develop the OSCE stations, and 69 foreign medical graduates taking the University of Toronto Pre-Internship Program OSCE were used to evaluate the stations. Results: The inter-rater reliability coefficients for the DNR and intubation scenarios were 0.79 (95% CI 0.69–0.87) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.62–0.84), respectively. For the DNR station, the scores of the two examiners, on a scale of 0 to 10, agreed exactly for 34 candidates (50%), within one mark for 59 candidates (87%), and within two marks for 65 candidates (96%). For the intubation station, the scores of the two examiners agreed exactly for 27 candidates (40%), within one mark for 56 candidates (84%), and within two marks for 63 candidates (94%). Conclusions: The authors produced ethics OSCE stations with face and content validity and satisfactory inter-rater agreement. Ethics OSCE stations may be suitable for evaluating the ability of medical students and residents to address selected clinical-ethical situations. Supported by the Educating Future Physicians for Ontario (EFPO) project. Dr. Singer is supported by a medical scholarship from the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association and a George Morris Piersol Teaching and Research Scholarship from the American College of Physicians. The Centre for Bioethics is supported by a Health Systems Linked Research Unit award from the Ontario Ministry of Health, the Bertha Rosenstadt Estate, and the William C. Harris Estate. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and may not represent those of the sponsoring groups.     

Effect of primary medical care on addiction and medical severity in substance abuse treatment programs

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the availability of primary medical care on-site at addiction treatment programs or off-site by referral improves patients' addiction severity and medical outcomes, compared to programs that offer no primary care. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of patients admitted to a purposive national sample of substance abuse treatment programs. SETTING: Substance abuse treatment programs in major U.S. metropolitan areas eligible for demonstration grant funding from the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. RESPONDENTS: Administrators at 52 substance abuse treatment programs, and 2,878 of their patients who completed treatment intake, discharge, and follow-up interviews. MEASUREMENTS: Program administrators reported whether the program had primary medical care available on-site, only off-site, or not at all. Patients responded to multiple questions regarding their addiction and medical status in intake and 12-month follow-up interviews. These items were combined into multi-item composite scores of addiction and medical severity. The addiction severity score includes items measuring alcohol and drug use, employment, illegal activities, legal supervision, family and other social support, housing, physical conditions, and psychiatric status. The medical severity score includes measures of perceived health, functional limitations, and comorbid physical conditions. MAIN RESULTS: After controlling for treatment modality, geographic region, and multiple patient-level characteristics, patients who attended programs with on-site primary medical care experienced significantly less addiction severity at 12-month follow-up (regression coefficient, -25.9; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], -43.2 to -8.5), compared with patients who attended programs with no primary medical care. However, on-site care did not significantly influence medical severity at follow-up (coefficient, -0.28; 95% CI, -0.69 to 0.14). Referral to off-site primary care exerted no detectable effects on either addiction severity (coefficient, -9.0; 95% CI, -26.5 to 8.5) or medical severity (coefficient, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.37 to 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: On-site primary medical care improves substance abuse treatment patients' addiction-related outcomes, but not necessarily their health-related outcomes. Further study is needed to discern the mechanism through which on-site primary care might improve the addiction-related outcomes of substance abuse treatment.