Examination to assess the clinical examination and documentation of spine pathology among orthopedic residents.

Background Context: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines requires residency programs to teach and evaluate residents in six overarching "core competencies" and document progress through educational milestones. To assess the progress of orthopedic interns' skills in performing a history, physical examination, and documentation of the encounter for a standardized patient with spinal stenosis, an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) was conducted for 13 orthopedic intern residents, following a 1-month boot camp that included communications skills and curriculum in history and physical examination. Interns were objectively scored based on their performance of the physical examination, communication skills, completeness and accuracy of their electronic medical record (EMR), and their diagnostic conclusions gleaned from the patient encounter.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to meaningfully assess the clinical skills of orthopedic post-graduate year (PGY)-1 interns. The findings can be used to develop a standardized curriculum for documenting patient encounters and highlight common areas of weakness among orthopedic interns with regard to the spine history and physical examination and conducting complete and accurate clinical documentation.

Study Setting: A major orthopedic specialty hospital and academic medical center.

Methods: Thirteen PGY-1 orthopedic residents participated in the OSCE with the same standardized patient presenting with symptoms and radiographs consistent with spinal stenosis. Videos of the encounters were independently viewed and objectively evaluated by one investigator in the study. This evaluation focused on the completeness of the history and the performance and completion of the physical examination. The standardized patient evaluated the communication skills of each intern with a separate objective evaluation. Interns completed these same scoring guides to evaluate their own performance in history, physical examination, and communications skills. The interns' documentation in the EMR was then scored for completeness, internal consistency, and inaccuracies.

Results: The independent review revealed objective deficits in both the orthopedic interns' history and the physical examination, as well as highlighted trends of inaccurate and incomplete documentation in the corresponding medical record. Communication skills with the patient did not meet expectations. Further, interns tended to overscore themselves, especially with regard to their performance on the physical examination (p<.0005). Inconsistencies, omissions, and inaccuracies were common in the corresponding medical notes when compared with the events of the patient encounter. Nine of the 13 interns (69.2%) documented at least one finding that was not assessed or tested in the clinical encounter, and four of the 13 interns (30.8%) included inaccuracies in the medical record, which contradicted the information collected at the time of the encounter.

Conclusions: The results of this study highlighted significant shortcomings in the completeness of the interns' spine history and physical examination, and the accuracy and completeness oftheir EMR note. The study provides a valuable exercise for evaluating residents in a multifaceted, multi-milestone manner that more accurately documents residents' clinical strengths and weaknesses. The study demonstrates that orthopedic residents require further instruction on the complexities of the spinal examination. It validates a need for increased systemic support for improving resident documentation through comprehensive education and evaluation modules.