31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Medical students review of formative OSCE scores, checklists, and videos improves with student-faculty debriefing meetings

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          Background: Performance feedback is considered essential to clinical skills development. Formative objective structured clinical exams (F-OSCEs) often include immediate feedback by standardized patients. Students can also be provided access to performance metrics including scores, checklists, and video recordings after the F-OSCE to supplement this feedback. How often students choose to review this data and how review impacts future performance has not been documented.

          Objective: We suspect student review of F-OSCE performance data is variable. We hypothesize that students who review this data have better performance on subsequent F-OSCEs compared to those who do not. We also suspect that frequency of data review can be improved with faculty involvement in the form of student-faculty debriefing meetings.

          Design: Simulation recording software tracks and time stamps student review of performance data. We investigated a cohort of first- and second-year medical students from the 2015-16 academic year. Basic descriptive statistics were used to characterize frequency of data review and a linear mixed-model analysis was used to determine relationships between data review and future F-OSCE performance.

          Results: Students reviewed scores (64%), checklists (42%), and videos (28%) in decreasing frequency. Frequency of review of all metric and modalities improved when student-faculty debriefing meetings were conducted (p<.001). Among 92 first-year students, checklist review was associated with an improved performance on subsequent F-OSCEs (p = 0.038) by 1.07 percentage points on a scale of 0-100. Among 86 second year students, no review modality was associated with improved performance on subsequent F-OSCEs.

          Conclusion: Medical students review F-OSCE checklists and video recordings less than 50% of the time when not prompted. Student-faculty debriefing meetings increased student data reviews. First-year student’s review of checklists on F-OSCEs was associated with increases in performance on subsequent F-OSCEs, however this outcome was not observed among second-year students.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Feedback in clinical medical education.

            J Ende (1983)
            In the setting of clinical medical education, feedback refers to information describing students' or house officers' performance in a given activity that is intended to guide their future performance in that same or in a related activity. It is a key step in the acquisition of clinical skills, yet feedback is often omitted or handled improperly in clinical training. This can result in important untoward consequences, some of which may extend beyond the training period. Once the nature of the feedback process is appreciated, however, especially the distinction between feedback and evaluation and the importance of focusing on the trainees' observable behaviors rather than on the trainees themselves, the educational benefit of feedback can be realized. This article presents guidelines for offering feedback that have been set forth in the literature of business administration, psychology, and education, adapted here for use by teachers and students of clinical medicine.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Medical students as peer tutors: a systematic review

              Background While Peer Assisted Learning (PAL) has long occurred informally in medical education, in the past ten years, there has been increasing international interest in formally organised PAL, with many benefits for both the students and institutions. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to establish why and how PAL has been implemented, focussing on the recruitment and training process for peer tutors, the benefits for peer tutors, and the competency of peer tutors. Method A literature search was conducted in three electronic databases. Selection of titles and abstracts were made based on pre-determined eligibility criteria. We utilized the ‘AMEE Peer assisted learning: a planning and implementation framework: AMEE Guide no. 30’ to assist us in establishing the review aims in a systematic review of the literature between 2002 and 2012. Six key questions were developed and used in our analysis of particular aspects of PAL programs within medical degree programs. Results We found nineteen articles that satisfied our inclusion criteria. The PAL activities fell into three broad categories of teacher training, peer teaching and peer assessment. Variability was found in the reporting of tutor recruitment and training processes, tutor outcomes, and tutor competencies. Conclusion Results from this review suggest that there are many perceived learning benefits for student tutors. However, there were mixed results regarding the accuracy of peer assessment and feedback, and no substantial evidence to conclude that participation as a peer tutor improves one’s own examination performance. Further research into PAL in medicine is required if we are to better understand the relative impact and benefits for student tutors.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Med Educ Online
                Med Educ Online
                ZMEO
                zmeo20
                Medical Education Online
                Taylor & Francis
                1087-2981
                2017
                19 May 2017
                : 22
                : 1
                : 1324718
                Affiliations
                [ a ] Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine at Quinnipiac , Hamden, CT, USA
                Author notes
                CONTACT Aaron W. Bernard Aaron.bernard@ 123456quinnipiac.edu Simulation & Medical Sciences, Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine at Quinnipiac , North Haven, CT, USA
                Article
                1324718
                10.1080/10872981.2017.1324718
                5508650
                28521646
                6228f851-154c-437c-9a37-55c30d55d7f7
                © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 22 December 2016
                : 19 April 2017
                Page count
                Tables: 3, References: 16, Pages: 6
                Categories
                Research Article
                Research Article

                Education
                osce,feedback,clinical skills,self-assessment,video review sp: standardized patient
                Education
                osce, feedback, clinical skills, self-assessment, video review sp: standardized patient

                Comments

                Comment on this article