First, do no harm: Evaluating clinical skills for patient safety in oncology fellows.

e21009 Background: This study aims to present the results and design of the Observational Standardized Clinical Examination (JCO 34, e18150, 2016) IOHM-USAL 2024, which focused on evaluating the clinical skills necessary to ensure patient safety. Methods: The clinical skills essential for patient safety were assessed through a series of stations. At each station, trained observers were present to evaluate the fellows' performance and complete an evaluation form. The stations were: a) Biosecurity in drug preparation (including hand washing, proper use of disposable clothing and gloves, and drug identification), b) Laboratory assessment prior to chemotherapy or immunotherapy administration, c) Drug administration via IV catheter, d) Management of chemotherapy extravasation, e) Evaluation of clinical response in a model of breast nodules, f) Detection of errors in different medical images, and g) Conflict de-escalation in a consultation with an aggressive patient. Results: Fourteen oncology fellows were evaluated. The outcomes for each station were as follows: a) Four out of 14 (28%) did not adhere to biosecurity guidelines. b) One out of 14 (7%) authorized chemotherapy administration without adequate laboratory results. c) All fellows successfully administered the drug via IV catheter. d) One out of 14 (7%) mishandled doxorubicin extravasation. e) Six out of 14 (42%) incorrectly assessed the clinical response in breast nodules. f) Three out of 14 (21%) failed to detect errors in medical images. g) Six out of 14 (42%) were unable to de-escalate a conflict during a consultation. Conclusions: A) Clinical skills essential for patient safety can be effectively evaluated through an Observational Standardized Clinical Examination (OSCE). B) In this implementation, medical errors were identified in biosecurity practices, laboratory assessments, clinical evaluations, and image interpretation. Only one student mishandled chemotherapy extravasation, and nearly half of the students struggled with conflict de-escalation during a consultation. C) This exam serves as a valuable tool for identifying both strengths and weaknesses in oncology fellows, allowing for targeted training to address specific gaps in knowledge and skills. D) Addressing these shortcomings in medical education is critical to ensure patient safety.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2025-05-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2025.43.16_suppl.e21009
Primary Topic
Ethics in medical practice
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

First, do no harm: Evaluating clinical skills for patient safety in oncology fellows.

Lourdes Gil Deza, Mario Javier Nacul, Flavio Tognelli, Leonel Smolje et al.
2 links
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Ethics in medical practice
article

First, do no harm: Evaluating clinical skills for patient safety in oncology fellows.

Lourdes Gil Deza, Mario Javier Nacul, Flavio Tognelli, Leonel Smolje, Gastón Martín Reinas, Martín Eleta, L. Pizarro, Ernesto Gil Deza, Claudia Lorena Acuna, Alberto Rancati, María del Huerto Jaunarena, Carlos García Gerardi, María del Carmen Bacqué, Daniela Gercovich, Isaias Gil Deza, Mariana Abal, Daniel Rampa, Santiago Nicolás Veleda
article en

Abstract

e21009 Background: This study aims to present the results and design of the Observational Standardized Clinical Examination (JCO 34, e18150, 2016) IOHM-USAL 2024, which focused on evaluating the clinical skills necessary to ensure patient safety. Methods: The clinical skills essential for patient safety were assessed through a series of stations. At each station, trained observers were present to evaluate the fellows' performance and complete an evaluation form. The stations were: a) Biosecurity in drug preparation (including hand washing, proper use of disposable clothing and gloves, and drug identification), b) Laboratory assessment prior to chemotherapy or immunotherapy administration, c) Drug administration via IV catheter, d) Management of chemotherapy extravasation, e) Evaluation of clinical response in a model of breast nodules, f) Detection of errors in different medical images, and g) Conflict de-escalation in a consultation with an aggressive patient. Results: Fourteen oncology fellows were evaluated. The outcomes for each station were as follows: a) Four out of 14 (28%) did not adhere to biosecurity guidelines. b) One out of 14 (7%) authorized chemotherapy administration without adequate laboratory results. c) All fellows successfully administered the drug via IV catheter. d) One out of 14 (7%) mishandled doxorubicin extravasation. e) Six out of 14 (42%) incorrectly assessed the clinical response in breast nodules. f) Three out of 14 (21%) failed to detect errors in medical images. g) Six out of 14 (42%) were unable to de-escalate a conflict during a consultation. Conclusions: A) Clinical skills essential for patient safety can be effectively evaluated through an Observational Standardized Clinical Examination (OSCE). B) In this implementation, medical errors were identified in biosecurity practices, laboratory assessments, clinical evaluations, and image interpretation. Only one student mishandled chemotherapy extravasation, and nearly half of the students struggled with conflict de-escalation during a consultation. C) This exam serves as a valuable tool for identifying both strengths and weaknesses in oncology fellows, allowing for targeted training to address specific gaps in knowledge and skills. D) Addressing these shortcomings in medical education is critical to ensure patient safety.

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 43(16_suppl)
Universidad del Salvador (AR), Instituto Oncológico Henry Moore (AR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 80%
Ethics in medical practice
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.