Factors confounding the assessment of reflection: a critical review

BACKGROUND: Reflection on experience is an increasingly critical part of professional development and lifelong learning. There is, however, continuing uncertainty about how best to put principle into practice, particularly as regards assessment. This article explores those uncertainties in order to find practical ways of assessing reflection. DISCUSSION: We critically review four problems: 1. Inconsistent definitions of reflection; 2. Lack of standards to determine (in)adequate reflection; 3. Factors that complicate assessment; 4. Internal and external contextual factors affecting the assessment of reflection. SUMMARY: To address the problem of inconsistency, we identified processes that were common to a number of widely quoted theories and synthesised a model, which yielded six indicators that could be used in assessment instruments. We arrived at the conclusion that, until further progress has been made in defining standards, assessment must depend on developing and communicating local consensus between stakeholders (students, practitioners, teachers, supervisors, curriculum developers) about what is expected in exercises and formal tests. Major factors that complicate assessment are the subjective nature of reflection's content and the dependency on descriptions by persons being assessed about their reflection process, without any objective means of verification. To counter these validity threats, we suggest that assessment should focus on generic process skills rather than the subjective content of reflection and where possible to consider objective information about the triggering situation to verify described reflections. Finally, internal and external contextual factors such as motivation, instruction, character of assessment (formative or summative) and the ability of individual learning environments to stimulate reflection should be considered

Pooled analysis of who surgical safety checklist use and mortality after emergency laparotomy

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) Surgical Safety Checklist has fostered safe practice for 10 years, yet its place in emergency surgery has not been assessed on a global scale. The aim of this study was to evaluate reported checklist use in emergency settings and examine the relationship with perioperative mortality in patients who had emergency laparotomy. Methods: In two multinational cohort studies, adults undergoing emergency laparotomy were compared with those having elective gastrointestinal surgery. Relationships between reported checklist use and mortality were determined using multivariable logistic regression and bootstrapped simulation. Results: Of 12 296 patients included from 76 countries, 4843 underwent emergency laparotomy. After adjusting for patient and disease factors, checklist use before emergency laparotomy was more common in countries with a high Human Development Index (HDI) (2455 of 2741, 89⋅6 per cent) compared with that in countries with a middle (753 of 1242, 60⋅6 per cent; odds ratio (OR) 0⋅17, 95 per cent c.i. 0⋅14 to 0⋅21, P < 0⋅001) or low (363 of 860, 42⋅2 percent; OR 0⋅08, 0⋅07 to 0⋅10, P < 0⋅001) HDI. Checklist use was less common in elective surgery than for emergency laparotomy in high-HDI countries (risk difference −9⋅4 (95 per cent c.i. −11⋅9 to −6⋅9) per cent; P < 0⋅001), but the relationship was reversed in low-HDI countries (+12⋅1 (+7⋅0 to +17⋅3) per cent; P < 0⋅001). In multivariable models, checklist use was associated with a lower 30-day perioperative mortality (OR 0⋅60, 0⋅50 to 0⋅73; P < 0⋅001). The greatest absolute benefit was seen for emergency surgery in low-and middle-HDI countries. Conclusion: Checklist use in emergency laparotomy was associated with a significantly lower perioperative mortality rate. Checklist use in low-HDI countries was half that in high-HDI countries

Global variation in anastomosis and end colostomy formation following left-sided colorectal resection

Background End colostomy rates following colorectal resection vary across institutions in high-income settings, being influenced by patient, disease, surgeon and system factors. This study aimed to assess global variation in end colostomy rates after left-sided colorectal resection. Methods This study comprised an analysis of GlobalSurg-1 and -2 international, prospective, observational cohort studies (2014, 2016), including consecutive adult patients undergoing elective or emergency left-sided colorectal resection within discrete 2-week windows. Countries were grouped into high-, middle- and low-income tertiles according to the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI). Factors associated with colostomy formation versus primary anastomosis were explored using a multilevel, multivariable logistic regression model. Results In total, 1635 patients from 242 hospitals in 57 countries undergoing left-sided colorectal resection were included: 113 (6·9 per cent) from low-HDI, 254 (15·5 per cent) from middle-HDI and 1268 (77·6 per cent) from high-HDI countries. There was a higher proportion of patients with perforated disease (57·5, 40·9 and 35·4 per cent; P < 0·001) and subsequent use of end colostomy (52·2, 24·8 and 18·9 per cent; P < 0·001) in low- compared with middle- and high-HDI settings. The association with colostomy use in low-HDI settings persisted (odds ratio (OR) 3·20, 95 per cent c.i. 1·35 to 7·57; P = 0·008) after risk adjustment for malignant disease (OR 2·34, 1·65 to 3·32; P < 0·001), emergency surgery (OR 4·08, 2·73 to 6·10; P < 0·001), time to operation at least 48 h (OR 1·99, 1·28 to 3·09; P = 0·002) and disease perforation (OR 4·00, 2·81 to 5·69; P < 0·001). Conclusion Global differences existed in the proportion of patients receiving end stomas after left-sided colorectal resection based on income, which went beyond case mix alone

Development and external validation of the ‘Global Surgical-Site Infection’ (GloSSI) predictive model in adult patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery

Background Identification of patients at high risk of surgical-site infections may allow surgeons to minimize associated morbidity. However, there are significant concerns regarding the methodological quality and transportability of models previously developed. The aim of this study was to develop a novel score to predict 30-day surgical-site infection risk after gastrointestinal surgery across a global context and externally validate against existing models. Methods This was a secondary analysis of two prospective international cohort studies: GlobalSurg-1 (July–November 2014) and GlobalSurg-2 (January–July 2016). Consecutive adults undergoing gastrointestinal surgery were eligible. Model development was performed using GlobalSurg-2 data, with novel and previous scores externally validated using GlobalSurg-1 data. The primary outcome was 30-day surgical-site infections, with two predictive techniques explored: penalized regression (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (‘LASSO’)) and machine learning (extreme gradient boosting (‘XGBoost’)). Final model selection was based on prognostic accuracy and clinical utility. Results There were 14 019 patients (surgical-site infections = 12.3%) for derivation and 8464 patients (surgical-site infections = 11.4%) for external validation. The LASSO model was selected due to similar discrimination to extreme gradient boosting (AUC 0.738 (95% c.i. 0.725 to 0.750) versus 0.737 (95% c.i. 0.709 to 0.765)), but greater explainability. The final score included six variables: country income, ASA grade, diabetes, and operative contamination, approach, and duration. Model performance remained good on external validation (AUC 0.730 (95% c.i. 0.715 to 0.744); calibration intercept −0.098 and slope 1.008) and demonstrated superior performance to the external validation of all previous models. Conclusion The ‘Global Surgical-Site Infection’ score allows accurate prediction of the risk of surgical-site infections with six simple variables that are routinely available at the time of surgery across global settings. This can inform the use of intraoperative and postoperative interventions to modify the risk of surgical-site infections and minimize associated harm

Chemically engineered glycan-modified cancer vaccines to mobilize skin dendritic cells

Dendritic cell (DC)–targeting vaccines show great promise in increasing antitumor immunity. Glycan-engineered vaccines facilitate both DC targeting and increased uptake by DCs for processing and presentation to CD4+ and CD8+ T cells to induce tumor-specific T-cell responses. However, the complexity of various DC subsets in skin tissues, expressing different glycan-binding receptors that can mediate vaccine uptake or drainage of vaccines via lymphatics directly to the lymph node–resident DCs, complicates the success of vaccines. Moreover, the influx of inflammatory immune cells to the site of vaccination, such as monocytes that differentiate to DCs and coexpress glycan-binding receptors, may contribute to the strength of DC-targeting glycovaccines for future clinical use