Intensive hypoglycemic treatment is the strongest preventive strategy against the development of microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), including diabetic nephropathy. However, some antidiabetic drugs, i.e. sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) have an additional renoprotective effect beyond glucose control by itself. Similar, both SGLT-2i and GLP1-RA have been demonstrated to decrease the risk of adverse cardiovascular (CV) events in CV outcome trials. Nevertheless, there are relevant differences in CV and renal effects of SGLT-2i and GLP1-RA. First, SGLT2i reduced the incidence and progression of albuminuria and prevented loss of kidney function, while predominant renal benefits of GLP1-RA were driven by albuminuria outcomes. Second, the risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations decreased on SGLT2i but not on GLP1-RA, which gives priority to SGLT2i in T2DM and HF, especially with depressed EF. Third, either GLP1-RA (reducing predominantly atherosclerosis-dependent events) or SGLT-2i, should be used in T2DM and established atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD) or other indicators of high CV risk. In this review, we have briefly compared clinical practice guidelines of the American Diabetes Association (2020 and 2021 versions), Polish Diabetes Association (2020) and the European Society of Cardiology/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (2019), with a focus on the choice between SGLT-2i and GLP1-RA in patients with diabetic kidney disease.

O b j e c t i v e s: Patient-centered care (PCC) is associated with better doctor-patient relationships, resulting in a decrease in symptoms, hospitalizations and health costs. However, studies analyzing factors infl uencing patient-centered attitudes show ambiguous results. The purpose was to assess the impact of the Clinical Communication Course (CCC) in Jagiellonian University, Cracow and other factors on Patient-Centered Attitudes (PCA) and Attitude toward Clinical Skills Learning (CSLA).

M e t h o d s: We retrospectively compared Polish-speakers (CCC+, n = 160), English-speakers (CCCen+, n = 55) aft er the CCC and upperclassmen Polish-speakers without it (CCC–, n = 122). Validated questionnaires to measure PCA (Leeds Attitude Toward Concordance II and Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS)) and for CSLA (Communication Skills Attitude Scale with negative subscale (CSAS-N)) were used. The higher the scores, the more PCA, and negative CSLA respectively. Students completed questionnaires and answered questions regarding age, sex, motivation to study (coded as humanitarian — MotHUM, financial — MotFIN, combination — MotMIX) and considered specialization — coded as with more human contact (family medicine, psychiatry, pediatrics — SpecHUM) and others (SpecNHUM). Statistics were prepared in R.

R e s u l t s: CCC+ scored higher in PPOS (2.91 vs. 2.74; p = 0.003) than CCC– and higher in CSAS-N than CCCen+ (31.22 vs. 28.32; p = 0.004). In CCC+ SpecHUM scored lower than SpecNHUM in PPOS (2.65 vs. 2.94, p = 0.012). MotFIN scored higher then MotMIX in PPOS (3.01 vs. 2.7, p = 0.036). Correlations were statistically significant.

C o n c l u s i o n: CCC improved PCA in CCC+. Th ey showed more negative CSLA than CCCen+. Among CCC+, surprisingly, SpecNHUM presented more PCA than SpecHUM as well as MotFIN compared to MotMIX.

Objectives: The OSCE (Objective Structured Clinical Examination) is a common method of assessing clinical skills used at many universities. An important and simultaneously difficult aspect of good examination preparation is obtaining a properly trained and well-motivated group of assessors. To effectively recruit and maintain cooperation with assessors, it is worth knowing their opinion. The aim of this study was to investigate the opinions of teacher-examiners about the OSCE and to identify the factors that could shape this opinion and influence on motivation.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a questionnaire on teachers who participated as OSCE examiners. This questionnaire consisted of 21 questions about their perceptions. Answers were rated in a five-point Likert-type scale. Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was used to analyze the data.

Results: A total of 49 (out of 52) teachers participated in this study. Nearly 90% of examiners believed that it is fair, and more than 90% that it is transparent. Despite the fact that 67% of examiners believe that the examination is difficult to organize and 71% believe it is stressful for students; according to 72% of respondents the OSCE has a positive effect on learning. More than 91% of examiners believed that the OSCE is an appropriate test to assess students’ skills. Opinions about the examination were independent of specialty, seniority, gender or having taken the OSCE as students.

Conclusion: Teacher-examiners viewed the OSCE as a fair and transparent examination, adequate for the assessment of skills and, despite it being difficult to organize, worth doing as it is appropriate to assess practical skills and positively influences students’ motivation to learn tested skills.