Marta A King1, Carrie A Phillipi2, Paula M Buchanan3, Linda O Lewin4. 1. Division of General Academic Pediatrics, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St Louis, Mo. Electronic address: making@slu.edu. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR. 3. Center for Outcomes Research, Saint Louis University, St Louis, Mo. 4. Department of Pediatrics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Bethesda, MD.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The written history and physical examination (H&P) is an underutilized source of medical trainee assessment. The authors describe development and validity evidence for the Pediatric History and Physical Exam Evaluation (P-HAPEE) rubric: a novel tool for evaluating written H&Ps. METHODS: Using an iterative process, the authors drafted, revised, and implemented the 10-item rubric at 3 academic institutions in 2014. Eighteen attending physicians and 5 senior residents each scored 10 third-year medical student H&Ps. Inter-rater reliability (IRR) was determined using intraclass correlation coefficients. Cronbach α was used to report consistency and Spearman rank-order correlations to determine relationships between rubric items. Raters provided a global assessment, recorded time to review and score each H&P, and completed a rubric utility survey. RESULTS: Overall intraclass correlation was 0.85, indicating adequate IRR. Global assessment IRR was 0.89. IRR for low- and high-quality H&Ps was significantly greater than for medium-quality ones but did not differ on the basis of rater category (attending physician vs. senior resident), note format (electronic health record vs nonelectronic), or student diagnostic accuracy. Cronbach α was 0.93. The highest correlation between an individual item and total score was for assessments was 0.84; the highest interitem correlation was between assessment and differential diagnosis (0.78). Mean time to review and score an H&P was 16.3 minutes; residents took significantly longer than attending physicians. All raters described rubric utility as "good" or "very good" and endorsed continued use. CONCLUSIONS: The P-HAPEE rubric offers a novel, practical, reliable, and valid method for supervising physicians to assess pediatric written H&Ps.
OBJECTIVE: The written history and physical examination (H&P) is an underutilized source of medical trainee assessment. The authors describe development and validity evidence for the Pediatric History and Physical Exam Evaluation (P-HAPEE) rubric: a novel tool for evaluating written H&Ps. METHODS: Using an iterative process, the authors drafted, revised, and implemented the 10-item rubric at 3 academic institutions in 2014. Eighteen attending physicians and 5 senior residents each scored 10 third-year medical student H&Ps. Inter-rater reliability (IRR) was determined using intraclass correlation coefficients. Cronbach α was used to report consistency and Spearman rank-order correlations to determine relationships between rubric items. Raters provided a global assessment, recorded time to review and score each H&P, and completed a rubric utility survey. RESULTS: Overall intraclass correlation was 0.85, indicating adequate IRR. Global assessment IRR was 0.89. IRR for low- and high-quality H&Ps was significantly greater than for medium-quality ones but did not differ on the basis of rater category (attending physician vs. senior resident), note format (electronic health record vs nonelectronic), or student diagnostic accuracy. Cronbach α was 0.93. The highest correlation between an individual item and total score was for assessments was 0.84; the highest interitem correlation was between assessment and differential diagnosis (0.78). Mean time to review and score an H&P was 16.3 minutes; residents took significantly longer than attending physicians. All raters described rubric utility as "good" or "very good" and endorsed continued use. CONCLUSIONS: The P-HAPEE rubric offers a novel, practical, reliable, and valid method for supervising physicians to assess pediatric written H&Ps.
Authors: Verity Schaye; Benedict Guzman; Jesse Burk-Rafel; Marina Marin; Ilan Reinstein; David Kudlowitz; Louis Miller; Jonathan Chun; Yindalon Aphinyanaphongs Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Verity Schaye; Louis Miller; David Kudlowitz; Jonathan Chun; Jesse Burk-Rafel; Patrick Cocks; Benedict Guzman; Yindalon Aphinyanaphongs; Marina Marin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jared P Austin; Mark Baskerville; Tracy Bumsted; Leslie Haedinger; Stephanie Nonas; Eugen Pohoata; Meghan Rogers; Megan Spickerman; Philippe Thuillier; Suzanne H Mitchell Journal: Perspect Med Educ Date: 2020-12