Dataset Information

The Electronic Health Record Objective Structured Clinical Examination Station: Assessing Student Competency in Patient Notes and Patient Interaction.

ABSTRACT: Introduction:The ability to utilize the electronic health record (EHR) without compromising the doctor-patient relationship (DPR) is an essential skill of all physicians and trainees, yet little time is spent on educating or assessing learners on needed techniques. To address this gap, we developed a conventional OSCE station coupled with a simulated patient chart within the Epic program in order to assess our students' skills utilizing the EHR during a patient encounter. Methods:Of third-year medical students, 119 were given full access to the patient's simulated chart 24 hours in advance of their OSCE to review clinical data. During an in-person OSCE with a standardized patient (SP), students performed a focused history and physical, using the EHR to verify allergies and medications. Students completed an electronic patient note graded by faculty. SPs evaluated the students on communication and interpersonal skills with specific rubric elements. Faculty graded the students' notes to evaluate their expression of clinical reasoning in the assessment and plan. Results:Training SPs and faculty to assess students on EHR skills was feasible. After implementation of a comprehensive curriculum focused on EHR and DPR, there was a significant difference on EHR-related communication skills (M = 76.4, SD = 17.6) versus (M = 37, SD = 28.9) before curriculum enhancement t (117.9) = -12.4, p <.001. Discussion:The EHR OSCE station provided a standardized method of assessing students' EHR skills during a patient encounter. Challenges still exist in the technological requirements to develop and deliver cases in today's EHR platform.

SUBMITTER: Shen E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7597945 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Electronic Health Record Objective Structured Clinical Examination Station: Assessing Student Competency in Patient Notes and Patient Interaction.

Shen E E Cristiano Joseph Anthony JA Ellis Leslie Renee LR

MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources 20201028

<h4>Introduction</h4>The ability to utilize the electronic health record (EHR) without compromising the doctor-patient relationship (DPR) is an essential skill of all physicians and trainees, yet little time is spent on educating or assessing learners on needed techniques. To address this gap, we developed a conventional OSCE station coupled with a simulated patient chart within the Epic program in order to assess our students' skills utilizing the EHR during a patient encounter.<h4>Methods</h4> ...[more]

PMID: 33150200

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Peer-assisted learning (PAL) refers to a learning activity whereby students of similar academic level teach and learn from one another. Groupe de perfectionnement des habiletés cliniques (Clinical Skills Improvement Group), a student organization at Université Laval, Canada, propelled PAL into the digital era by creating a collaborative virtual patient platform. Medical interviews can be completed in pairs (a student-patient and a student-doctor) through an interactive Web-based application, which generates a score (weighted for key questions) and automated feedback. OBJECTIVES:The aim of the study was to measure the pedagogical impact of the application on the score at medical interview stations at the summative preclerkship Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). METHODS:We measured the use of the application (cases completed, mean score) in the 2 months preceding the OSCE. We also accessed the results of medical interview stations at the preclerkship summative OSCE. We analyzed whether using the application was associated with higher scores and/or better passing grades (≥60%) at the OSCE. Finally, we produced an online form where students could comment on their appreciation of the application. RESULTS:Of the 206 students completing the preclerkship summative OSCE, 170 (82.5%) were registered users on the application, completing a total of 3133 cases (18 by active user in average, 7 minutes by case in average). The appreciation questionnaire was answered online by 45 students who mentioned appreciating the intuitive, easy-to-use, and interactive design, the diversity of cases, and the automated feedback. Using the application was associated with reduced reported stress, improved scores (P=.04), and improved passing rates (P=.11) at the preclerkship summative OSCE. CONCLUSIONS:This study suggests that PAL can go far beyond small-group teaching, showing students' potential to create helpful pedagogical tools for their peers.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) are a useful method to evaluate medical students' performance in the clerkship years. OSCEs are designed to assess skills and knowledge in a standardized clinical setting and through use of a preset standard grading sheet, so that clinical knowledge can be evaluated at a high level and in a reproducible way. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to present our OSCE assessment tool designed specifically for radiology clerkship medical students, which we called the objective structured radiology examination (OSRE), with the intent to advance the assessment of clerkship medical students by providing an objective, structured, reproducible, and low-cost method to evaluate medical students' radiology knowledge and the reproducibility of this assessment tool. METHODS:We designed 9 different OSRE cases for radiology clerkship classes with participating third- and fourth-year medical students. Each examination comprises 1 to 3 images, a clinical scenario, and structured questions, along with a standardized scoring sheet that allows for an objective and low-cost assessment. Each medical student completed 3 of 9 random examination cases during their rotation. To evaluate for reproducibility of our scoring sheet assessment tool, we used 5 examiners to grade the same students. Reproducibility for each case and consistency for each grader were assessed with a two-way mixed effects intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). An ICC below 0.4 was deemed poor to fair, an ICC of 0.41 to 0.60 was moderate, an ICC of 0.6 to 0.8 was substantial, and an ICC greater than 0.8 was almost perfect. We also assessed the correlation of scores and the students' clinical experience with a linear regression model and compared mean grades between third- and fourth-year students. RESULTS:A total of 181 students (156 third- and 25 fourth-year students) were included in the study for a full academic year. Moreover, 6 of 9 cases demonstrated average ICCs more than 0.6 (substantial correlation), and the average ICCs ranged from 0.36 to 0.80 (P<.001 for all the cases). The average ICC for each grader was more than 0.60 (substantial correlation). The average grade among the third-year students was 11.9 (SD 4.9), compared with 12.8 (SD 5) among the fourth-year students (P=.005). There was no correlation between clinical experience and OSRE grade (-0.02; P=.48), adjusting for the medical school year. CONCLUSIONS:Our OSRE is a reproducible assessment tool with most of our OSRE cases showing substantial correlation, except for 3 cases. No expertise in radiology is needed to grade these examinations using our scoring sheet. There was no correlation between scores and the clinical experience of the medical students tested.

Project description:This study aimed to investigate the impact of student e-learning on the development of clinical competencies. The study participants were 3rd year students (n = 43) at a private mid-sized medical school located in a South Korean suburb on a four-year medical program. Educational intervention was implemented to enhance student clinical performance. Students engaged in learning activities that intended to promote their self-directed learning abilities and clinical performances using e-learning resources. Intervention was conducted for the duration of six months during the 3rd year and its effectiveness was investigated by comparing student performances in OSCEs in a pre- and post- comparison format and also by comparing them with national scores. In addition, student perceptions of the impact of e-learning on their OSCE performances were assessed using a questionnaire, which included 36 items that elicited student perceptions of their experiences of e-learning and readiness for e-learning. Student OSCE scores improved significantly after educational intervention in all domains of clinical competencies assessed and for total scores (p < 0.001). Furthermore, students achieved higher OSCE scores than national average scores in the post-test, whereas they had performed lower than national average scores in the pre-test. Students showed neutral or slightly positive responses to the effectiveness of e-learning, and their perceptions of e-learning were not associated with their e-learning readiness scores. The study shows student OSCE performance improved significantly after educational intervention, which indicate the effectiveness of e-learning to support student learning of clinical performance. Despite significant improvements in student OSCE scores after e-learning, their perceptions of its effectiveness were neutral. Furthermore, student perceptions of e-learning were not associated with their readiness for it. Suggestions are made to help students use e-learning more effectively to enhance their clinical competencies.

Project description:ImportanceAs health information transparency increases, patients more often seek their health data. More than 44 million patients in the US can now readily access their ambulatory visit notes online, and the practice is increasing abroad. Few studies have assessed documentation errors that patients identify in their notes and how these may inform patient engagement and safety strategies.ObjectiveTo assess the frequency and types of errors identified by patients who read open ambulatory visit notes.Design, setting, and participantsIn this survey study, a total of 136?815 patients at 3 US health care organizations with open notes, including 79 academic and community ambulatory care practices, received invitations to an online survey from June 5 to October 20, 2017. Patients who had at least 1 ambulatory note and had logged onto the portal at least once in the past 12 months were included. Data analysis was performed from July 3, 2018, to April 27, 2020.ExposuresAccess to ambulatory care open notes through patient portals for up to 7 years (2010-2017).Main outcomes and measuresProportion of patients reporting a mistake and how serious they perceived the mistake to be, factors associated with finding errors characterized by patients as serious, and categories of patient-reported errors.ResultsOf 136?815 patients who received survey invitations, 29?656 (21.7%) responded and 22?889 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.16 [15.96] years; 14 447 [63.1%] female; 18 301 [80.0%] white) read 1 or more notes in the past 12 months and completed error questions. Of these patients, 4830 (21.1%) reported a perceived mistake and 2043 (42.3%) reported that the mistake was serious (somewhat serious: 1563 [32.4%]; very serious: 480 [9.9%]). In multivariable analysis, female patients (relative risk [RR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.72-1.85), more educated patients (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.29-1.48), sicker patients (RR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.84-1.94), those aged 45 to 64 years (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 2.06-2.42), those 65 years or older (RR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.73-2.32), and those who read more than 1 note (2-3 notes: RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.34-2.47; ?4 notes: RR, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.02-4.73) were more likely to report a mistake that they found to be serious compared with their reference groups. After categorization of patient-reported very serious mistakes, those specifically mentioning the word diagnosis or describing a specific error in current or past diagnoses were most common (98 of 356 [27.5%]), followed by inaccurate medical history (85 of 356 [23.9%]), medications or allergies (50 of 356 [14.0%]), and tests, procedures, or results (30 of 356 [8.4%]). A total of 23 (6.5%) reflected notes reportedly written on the wrong patient. Of 433 very serious errors, 255 (58.9%) included at least 1 perceived error potentially associated with the diagnostic process (eg, history, physical examination, tests, referrals, and communication).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, patients who read ambulatory notes online perceived mistakes, a substantial proportion of which they found to be serious. Older and sicker patients were twice as likely to report a serious error compared with younger and healthier patients, indicating important safety and quality implications. Sharing notes with patients may help engage them to improve record accuracy and health care safety together with practitioners.

Dataset Information

The Electronic Health Record Objective Structured Clinical Examination Station: Assessing Student Competency in Patient Notes and Patient Interaction.

Publications

The Electronic Health Record Objective Structured Clinical Examination Station: Assessing Student Competency in Patient Notes and Patient Interaction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets