Apm perspectives

The Lost Art of Clinical Skills

The COVID-19 pandemic has compelled rethinking and changes in medical education, the most controversial perhaps being the cancelation of USMLE Step-2 Clinical Skills exam (Step-2 CS). What started in March of 2020 as suspension of this professional licensure exam, because of concerns about infection risk for examinees, standardized patients (SPs), and administrators, soon became permanent cancelation in January 2021. Expectedly, it triggered debate in medical education circles. Positively, however, the USMLE regulatory agencies (NBME and FSMB) saw an opportunity to innovate an exam tainted with perceptions of validity deficits, cost, examinee inconvenience, and worries about future pandemics; they therefore called for a public debate to fashion a way forward. We have approached the issue by defining Clinical Skills (CS), exploring its epistemology and historic evolution, including assessment modalities from Hippocratic times to the modern era. We defined CS as the art of medicine manifest in the physician-patient encounter as history taking (driven by communication skills and cultural competence) and physical examination. We classified CS components into knowledge and psychomotor skill domains, established their relative importance in the physician process (clinical reasoning) of diagnosis, thus establishing a theoretical framework for developing valid, reliable, feasible, fair, and verifiable CS assessment. Given the concerns for COVID-19 and future pandemics, we established that CS can largely be assessed remotely, and what could not, can be assessed locally (school/regional consortia level) as part of a USMLE-regulated/supervised assessment regimen with established national standards, thus maintaining USMLE's fiduciary responsibilities. We have suggested a national/regional program for faculty development in CS curriculum development, and assessment, including standard setting skills. This pool of expert faculty will form the nucleus of our proposed USMLE-regulated External Peer Review Initiative (EPRI). Finally, we suggest that CS evolves into an academic discipline/department of its own, rooted in scholarship.

Using reliable and valid clinical tests are essential for proper diagnosis and clinical outcomes among injuries involving the rotator cuff. The addition of a new clinical examination test could improve the clinical diagnosis and informative value of the sensitivity and specificity of pathology. This study of diagnostic accuracy evaluated the use of a new rotator cuff test, called the internal rotation and shift-test (IRO/shift-test), to determine its reliability and clinical performance (sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV)/negative predictive value (NPV)). Clinical diagnostic outcomes were confirmed with radiological findings (MRI).

100 patients from a specialized shoulder unit participated (64 male, 36 female, mean age: 55 ± 13.5 years). A single-blinded (no knowledge of prior clinical or technical diagnostics) study design was used with two experienced physicians performing the IRO/shift-test. For clinical performance, all clinical testing was compared with MRI.

The intra-rater (ICC = 0.73, 95% CI: 60-82) and inter-rater (ICC = 0.89, 95% CI: 81-94) coefficients for the IRO/shift-test showed good-to-excellent reliability. 75% of the patients showed a positive IRO/shift-test, while 65% had a radiologically diagnosed superior rotator cuff tear. 60% of these patients had both a positive IRO/shift-test and objective rotator cuff tear via MRI. The sensitivity of the IRO/shift-test to detect superior rotator cuff lesions based on MRI diagnosis was calculated at 92% (95% CI: 86-99%), while specificity was 67% (95% CI: 50-84%). Predictive values were also found to be high with 86% PPV (95% CI: 78-94%) and 80% NPV (95% CI: 64-96%).

Our results demonstrate that the IRO/shift-test is a reliable and valid tool for assessing superior rotator cuff pathology. With good-to-excellent intrarater and inter-rater reliability and strong sensitivity and specificity this test should be considered a valuable addition to clinicians’ cadre of clinical evaluation tools.

The definition of severe aortic stenosis has undergone significant change casting a wider net to avoid missing patients who could benefit from valve replacement. The presence or absence of symptoms remains the key decision-making element; however, individuals presently undergoing evaluation are older, more likely asymptomatic, and have lower gradients. Due to numerous potential measurement errors, attention to detail when performing diagnostic testing and understanding their limitations are necessary to render appropriate treatment. Exercise testing adds useful information for individuals with severe aortic stenosis felt to be asymptomatic. Dobutamine echocardiography, in low flow-low gradient aortic stenosis, distinguishes between a myopathic and valvular cause of left ventricular dysfunction. Evaluation of patients when normotensive minimizes measurement errors. The amount of aortic valve calcification adds useful information when the degree of aortic stenosis is uncertain. A good history and physical integrated with high-quality imaging data allows for appropriate clinical treatment decisions for patients with aortic stenosis. The goal is simultaneously to provide aortic valve replacement for patients in need while avoiding overdiagnosis and performance of unnecessary procedures.

Appendicitis in children can be diagnosed utilizing clinical and laboratory findings, with the assistance of ultrasound (US) and/or computed tomography (CT). However, repeated exposure to ionizing radiation increases the lifetime risk of cancer. We compared the work-up of suspected appendicitis between a children’s hospital in the United States (USA) and one in Spain to identify differences in imaging use and associated outcomes.

A two-institution retrospective review was performed for surgical consultations of suspected appendicitis from 2015-2017. We compared imaging use, the utilization of overnight observation, and diagnostic accuracy rates between the two centers.

A total of 1,952 children were evaluated. Among the 1,288 in the USA center, 754(58.5%) underwent CT during their evaluation. The most common imaging modality was US only (39.9%), then CT only (39.3%), CT + US (19.3%), and no imaging (i.e. only clinical acumen) (1.6%). In Spain, only 19 (2.9%) of 664 children underwent CT compared to the USA (p < 0.0001). Only clinical acumen was the most common modality employed (48.6%), followed by US only (48.5%), US + CT (2.4%), and CT only (0.5%). In the USA, 16.8% were observed overnight, 2.3% of whom received no imaging. In Spain, 33.4% were observed overnight, 32.4% of whom had no imaging (p < 0.0001). The accuracy rates for diagnosing appendicitis in the USA and Spain centers were 94.7% and 95.1%, respectively.

Use of clinical acumen and/or US have similar clinical outcomes and similar accuracy rates compared to heavy reliance on CT imaging for diagnosing appendicitis, with associated decrease in radiation exposure. The disparate diagnostic approach of the two centers may reflect that physical examination is a dying art in North America.

III

The stethoscope is a tool cherished by the field of cardiology and ubiquitous throughout medicine. However, little consideration has been given to its safe usage regarding its potential for pathogenic contamination despite thorough evidence that stethoscopes can harbor pathogens that can be transmitted to patients upon contact. The COVID-19 (SARS-COV-2) pandemic has led to increased infection control vigilance, including toward the stethoscope, as evidenced by a recent increase in literature highlighting stethoscope hygiene/contamination. A consequence of this increase in awareness is that stethoscopes may be implicated in medical malpractice lawsuits as a potential cause of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). While there is limited evidence demonstrating a direct connection between stethoscope contamination and HAIs, malpractice lawsuits often do not require direct causative evidence. Regardless, efforts should be made to bolster stethoscope hygiene to not only mitigate patient harm, but also prevent providers from potential medical-legal conflicts. The continued relevance and utility of the stethoscope as a rapid, cost-effective diagnostic tool needs to be appropriately balanced with increased hygiene performance. Providers should anticipate increased scientific evidence and patient awareness regarding stethoscope contamination in the post-COVID-19 era.