A new measurement tool for individualism and collectivism has been developed to address critical methodological issues in this field of social psychology. This new measure, the Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Scale (AICS), defines three dimensions of individualism: (a) responsibility (acknowledging one's responsibility for one's actions), (b) uniqueness (distinction of the self from the other), and (c) competitiveness (striving for personal goals is one's prime interest). The scale also defines two dimensions of collectivism: (a) advice (seeking advice from people close to one, before taking decisions) and (b) harmony (seeking to avoid conflict). The AICS avoids the need for measuring horizontal and vertical dimensions of collectivism and individualism and the confounding effect of familialism on the collectivism—individualism constructs.

We evaluated the effectiveness of a simulation-based intervention on improving teamwork in multidisciplinary critical care teams managing airway and cardiac crises and compared simulation-based learning and case-based learning on scores for performance. Self-controlled randomized crossover study design with blinded assessors. A simulated critical care ward, using a high-fidelity patient simulator, in a university simulation center. Forty teams from critical care units within the region comprising one doctor and three nurses. At the beginning and end of the 10-hr study day, each team undertook two preintervention and two postintervention assessment simulations (one airway, one cardiac on both occasions). The study day included presentations and discussions on human factors and crisis management, and airway and cardiac skills stations. For the intervention, teams were randomized to case-based learning or simulation-based learning for cardiac or airway scenarios. Each simulation was recorded and independently rated by three blinded expert assessors using a structured rating tool with technical and behavioral components. Participants were surveyed 3 months later. We demonstrated significant improvements in scores for overall teamwork (p ≤ .002) and the two behavioral factors, “Leadership and Team Coordination” (p ≤ .002) and “Verbalizing Situational Information” (p ≤ .02). Scores for clinical management also improved significantly (p ≤ .003). We found no significant difference between simulation-based learning and case-based learning in the context of this study. Survey data supported the effectiveness of study day with responders reporting retention of learning and changes made to patient management. A simulation-based study day can improve teamwork in multidisciplinary critical care unit teams as measured in pre- and postcourse simulations with some evidence of subsequent changes to patient management. In the context of a full-day course, using a mix of simulation-based learning and case-based learnings seems to be an effective teaching strategy.

Purpose: The objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) is considered to be one of the most robust methods of clinical assessment. One of its strengths lies in its ability to minimise the effects of examiner bias due to the standardisation of items and tasks for each candidate. However, OSCE examiners’ assessment scores are influenced by several factors that may jeopardise the assumed objectivity of OSCEs. To better understand this phenomenon, the current review aims to determine and describe important sources of examiner bias and the factors affecting examiners’ assessments. Methods: We performed a narrative review of the medical literature using Medline. All articles meeting the selection criteria were reviewed, with salient points extracted and synthesised into a clear and comprehensive summary of the knowledge in this area. Results: OSCE examiners’ assessment scores are influenced by factors belonging to 4 different domains: examination context, examinee characteristics, examinee-examiner interactions, and examiner characteristics. These domains are composed of several factors including halo, hawk/dove and OSCE contrast effects; the examiner’s gender and ethnicity; training; lifetime experience in assessing; leadership and familiarity with students; station type; and site effects. Conclusion: Several factors may influence the presumed objectivity of examiners’ assessments, and these factors need to be addressed to ensure the objectivity of OSCEs. We offer insights into directions for future research to better understand and address the phenomenon of examiner bias.

Purpose: Senior nursing and medical interns’ lack of familiarity and confidence with respect to practicing universal precaution for the prevention of occupational needlestick or sharp injuries may harm themselves. Trainees’ self-reported needlestick or sharp injury rate was known to be especially high during the first 2 months of internship in Taiwan. This prospective cohort study aimed to assess the effect of newly developed virtual reality (VR) game, which uses Gagne’s learning model to improve universal precaution for needlestick or sharp injury prevention and decrease the rates of needle stick or sharp injuries in new-coming medical and nursing interns in Taiwan.Methods: From 2017 to 2019, the VR system was developed and applied in training of 59 new-coming nursing and 50 medical interns. Occupational needlestick or sharp injury prevention was sought to be achieved through a game of right and wrong choices for safe or unsafe universal precaution behaviors.Results: In comparison with medical interns, a higher proportion of nursing interns had past experiences of deep occupational needlestick or sharp injury. Before VR training, the familiarity and confidence for needlestick or sharp injury prevention were higher among nursing interns than medical interns. Trainees with past experiences of deep needlestick or sharp injury exhibited better performance on the accuracy rate and time needed to complete 20 decisions than those without past experiences in VR practice. All trainees showed an improved performance after VR training. A high proportion of trainees reported that the VR-based training significantly decreased their anxiety about needlestick or sharp injury prevention.Conclusion: This self-developed VR game system using Gagne’s flow improved universal precaution for needlestick or sharp injury prevention and reduced the needlestick or sharp injury rates in the first 2 months of nursing and medical internship.

Purpose: Lack of confidence in suturing/ligature skills due to insufficient practice and assessments is common among novice Chinese medical interns. This study aimed to improve the skill acquisition of medical interns through a new intervention program. Methods: In addition to regular clinical training, expert-led or expert-led plus artificial intelligence (AI) system tutoring courses were implemented during the first 2 weeks of the surgical block. Interns could voluntarily join the regular (no additional tutoring), expert-led tutoring, or expert-led+AI tutoring groups freely. In the regular group, interns (n=25) did not receive additional tutoring. The expert-led group received 3-hour expert-led tutoring and in-training formative assessments after 2 practice sessions. After a similar expert-led course, the expert-led+AI group (n=23) practiced and assessed their skills on an AI system. Through a comparison with the internal standard, the system automatically recorded and evaluated every intern’s suturing/ligature skills. In the expert-led+AI group, performance and confidence were compared between interns who participated in 1, 2, or 3 AI practice sessions.Results: The end-of-surgical block objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) performance and self-assessed confidence in suturing/ligature skills were highest in the expert-led+AI group. In comparison with the expert-led group, the expert-led+AI group showed similar performance in the in-training assessment and greater improvement in the end-of-surgical block OSCE. In the expert-led+AI group, the best performance and highest post-OSCE confidence were noted in those who engaged in 3 AI practice sessions.Conclusion: This pilot study demonstrated the potential value of incorporating an additional expert-led+AI system–assisted tutoring course into the regular surgical curriculum.