Dataset Information

Physical examination skills training: Faculty staff vs. patient instructor feedback-A controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Standardized patients are widely used in training of medical students, both in teaching and assessment. They also frequently lead complete training sessions delivering physical examination skills without the aid of faculty teaching staff-acting as "patient instructors" (PIs). An important part of this training is their ability to provide detailed structured feedback to students which has a strong impact on their learning success. Yet, to date no study has assessed the quality of physical examination related feedback by PIs. Therefore, we conducted a randomized controlled study comparing feedback of PIs and faculty staff following a physical examination assessed by students and video assessors.14 PIs and 14 different faculty staff physicians both delivered feedback to 40 medical students that had performed a physical examination on the respective PI while the physicians observed the performance. The physical examination was rated by two independent video assessors to provide an objective performance standard (gold standard). Feedback of PI and physicians was content analyzed by two different independent video assessors based on a provided checklist and compared to the performance standard. Feedback of PIs and physicians was also rated by medical students and video assessors using a questionnaire consisting of 12 items.There was no statistical significant difference concerning overall matching of physician or PI feedback with gold standard ratings by video assessment (p = .219). There was also no statistical difference when focusing only on items that were classified as major key steps (p = .802), mistakes or parts that were left out during physical examination (p = .219) or mistakes in communication items (p = .517). The feedback of physicians was significantly better rated than PI feedback both by students (p = .043) as well as by video assessors (p = .034).In summary, our study demonstrates that trained PIs are able to provide feedback of equal quantitative value to that of faculty staff physicians with regard to a physical examination performed on them. However, both the students and the video raters judged the quality of the feedback given by the physicians to be significantly better than that of the PIs.

SUBMITTER: Krautter M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5503248 | biostudies-other | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Physical examination skills training: Faculty staff vs. patient instructor feedback-A controlled trial.

Krautter Markus M Diefenbacher Katja K Schultz Jobst-Hendrik JH Maatouk Imad I Herrmann-Werner Anne A Koehl-Hackert Nadja N Herzog Wolfgang W Nikendei Christoph C

PloS one 20170710 7

<h4>Background</h4>Standardized patients are widely used in training of medical students, both in teaching and assessment. They also frequently lead complete training sessions delivering physical examination skills without the aid of faculty teaching staff-acting as "patient instructors" (PIs). An important part of this training is their ability to provide detailed structured feedback to students which has a strong impact on their learning success. Yet, to date no study has assessed the quality ...[more]

PMID: 28692703

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe effectiveness of physical examination skills (PES) training is very rarely assessed using the "post-then-pre" approach. In this study, a retro-pre-questionnaire was used to study the effect of structured physical examination skills training (SPEST) imparted to second-year undergraduate medical students.MethodsKIST Medical College (KISTMC) affiliated to Tribhuvan University Nepal admitted its first batch of MBBS students in November 2008. The university curriculum recommends the involvement of Medicine and Surgery Departments in PES training, but the methods for teaching and assessment are not well defined. KISTMC has made training more structured and involved the Medicine, Surgery, Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Orthopaedics, ENT, Ophthalmology, Paediatrics, and Family Medicine Departments. SPEST includes the teaching/learning of basic PES for 210 minutes once a week for 28 weeks. Self-assessment is done by using a retro-pre-questionnaire at the end of the last session of training, and these data are analysed using SPSS.ResultsOut of 100 students, 98 participated in the objective structured clinical examination (OSCE); 82 completed the retro-pre-questionnaire. Forty-six skills representing various systems were selected for inclusion in the retro-pre-questionnaire from among the many skills taught in different departments. The average perceived skills score (maximum score, 46×4=184) before training was 15.9 and increased to 116.5 after training. The increase was statistically significant upon the application of a paired t-test.ConclusionThe students perceived that their level of skills improved after the training. The retro-pre- instrument seems to be useful for assessing the learners' self-reported changes in PES after training if a large number of skills need to be assessed. However, it should be noted that although a retro-pre-questionnaire may reveal valuable information, it is not a substitute for an objective measure or gold standard.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Doctoral supervision is a distinct form of supervision with clearly defined responsibilities. One of these is the delivery of effective face-to-face feedback to allow supervisees to improve upon their performances. Unfortunately, doctoral supervisors, especially of health sciences, are often not trained in supervisory skills and therefore practice mostly on a trial and error basis. Lack of understanding of the feedback process leads to incongruence in how supervisors and supervisees perceive feedback. However, standardized training practices like microteaching can allow supervisors to acquire effective feedback practices. In this study we employed a schematic approach of microteaching, that is micro-feedback, in a workshop to develop feedback skills of doctoral supervisors, and assessed the overall effectiveness of this training using the Kirkpatrick evaluation framework. METHODOLOGY:This was a Quasi-experimental study with a repeated measures and a two-group separate sample pre-post test design. A micro-feedback skills workshop was organized to enhance feedback skills of doctoral supervisors using microteaching technique. The first two levels of the Kirkpatrick evaluation model were used to determine the workshop's effectiveness. An informal Objective Structured Teaching Exercise (OSTE) was used to assess feedback skills of the supervisors, both before and after the workshop. A questionnaire was developed to compare pre-and post-workshop perceptions of the supervisors (n = 17) and their corresponding supervisees (n = 34) regarding the ongoing feedback practice. RESULTS:Despite the hectic schedule, most doctoral supervisors (17 of 24, 71%) were willing to undertake faculty development training. Participants indicated a high level of satisfaction with the workshop. A learning gain of 56% was observed on pre-post OSTE scores. Prior to the workshop, perceptions of how supervisees should be given the feedback differed significantly between supervisors and supervisees with an effect size difference of r = 0.30. After the workshop there was a negligible difference in perceptions between supervisors and supervisees (r = .001). Interestingly, supervisors shifted their perceptions more toward those that were originally held by the supervisees. CONCLUSIONS:These findings suggest that well-designed and properly assessed structured programs such as micro-feedback workshops can improve how doctoral supervisors provide feedback to their supervisees and align supervisors' perceptions of that feedback with those of their supervisees.

Project description:BackgroundExecutive functions underlie self-regulation and are thus important for physical activity and adaptation to new situations. The aim was to investigate, if yearlong physical and cognitive training (PTCT) had greater effects on physical activity among older adults than physical training (PT) alone, and if executive functions predicted physical activity at baseline, after six (6m) and twelve months (12m) of the interventions, one-year post-intervention follow-up and an extended follow-up during COVID-19 lockdown.MethodsData from a single-blinded, parallel-group randomized controlled trial (PASSWORD-study, ISRCTN52388040) were utilized. Participants were 70-85 years old community-dwelling men and women from Jyväskylä, Finland. PT (n = 159) included supervised resistance, walking and balance training, home-exercises and self-administered moderate activity. PTCT (n = 155) included PT and cognitive training targeting executive functions on a computer program. Physical activity was assessed with a one-item, seven-scale question. Executive functions were assessed with color-word Stroop, Trail Making Test (TMT) B-A and Letter Fluency. Changes in physical activity were modeled with multinomial logistic models and the impact of executive functions on physical activity with latent change score models.ResultsNo significant group-by-time interaction was observed for physical activity (p>0.1). The subjects were likely to select an activity category higher than baseline throughout the study (pooled data: B = 0.720-1.614, p<0.001-0.046). Higher baseline Stroop predicted higher physical activity through all subsequent time-points (pooled data: B = 0.011-0.013, p = 0.015-0.030). Higher baseline TMT B-A predicted higher physical activity at 6m (pooled data: B = 0.007, p = 0.006) and during COVID-19 (B = 0.005, p = 0.030). In the PT group, higher baseline Letter Fluency predicted higher physical activity at 12m (B = -0.028, p = 0.030) and follow-up (B = -0.042, p = 0.002).ConclusionsCognitive training did not have additive effects over physical training alone on physical activity, but multicomponent training and higher executive function at baseline may support adaptation to and maintenance of a physically active lifestyle among older adults.

Project description:IntroductionTraining Basic Life Support saves lives. However, current BLS training approaches are time-consuming and costly. Alternative cost-efficient and effective training methods are highly needed. The present study evaluated whether a video-feedback supported peer-guided Basic Life Support training approach achieves similar practical performance as a standard instructor-guided training in laypersons.MethodsIn a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, 288 first-year medical students were randomized to two study arms with different Basic Life Support training methods: 1) Standard Instructor Feedback (SIF) or 2) a Peer Video Feedback (PVF). Outcome parameters were objective data for Basic Life Support performance (compression depth and rate) from a resuscitation manikin with recording software as well as overall Basic Life Support performance and subjective confidence. Non-inferiority margins (Δ) for these outcome parameters and sample size calculation were based on previous studies with Standard Instructor Feedback. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals were employed to determine significance of non-inferiority.ResultsResults confirmed non-inferiority of Peer Video Feedback to Standard Instructor Feedback for compression depth (proportion difference PVF-SIF = 2.9%; 95% CI: -8.2% to 14.1%; Δ = -19%), overall Basic Life Support performance (proportion difference PVF-SIF = 6.7%; 95% CI: 0.0% to 14.3%; Δ = -27%) and subjective confidence for CPR performance (proportion difference PVF-SIF = -0.01; 95% CI: -0.18-0.17; Δ = -0.5) and emergency situations (proportion difference PVF-SIF = -0.02; 95% CI: -0.21-0.18; Δ = -0.5). Results for compression rate were inconclusive.DiscussionPeer Video Feedback achieves comparable results as standard instructor-based training methods. It is an easy-to-apply and cost-efficient alternative to standard Basic Life Support training methods. To improve performance with respect to compression rate, additional implementation of a metronome is recommended.

Dataset Information

Physical examination skills training: Faculty staff vs. patient instructor feedback-A controlled trial.

Publications

Physical examination skills training: Faculty staff vs. patient instructor feedback-A controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets