Literature DB >> 19704205

Consequences within medical schools for students with poor performance on a medical school standardized patient comprehensive assessment.

Karen E Hauer1, Arianne Teherani, Kathleen M Kerr, David M Irby, Patricia S O'Sullivan.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Medical schools increasingly employ comprehensive standardized patient assessments to ensure medical students' clinical competence. The consequences of poor performance on the assessment and the institutional factors associated with imposing consequences are unknown.
METHOD: In 2006, the investigators surveyed 122 U.S. medical school curriculum deans about comprehensive assessments using standardized patients after core clerkships, with questions about exam characteristics, institutional commitment to the examination (years of experience, exam infrastructure, clerkship director involvement), academic consequences of failing the assessment, and satisfaction with remediation.
RESULTS: Ninety-three of 122 (76%) deans responded. Eighty-two (88%) conducted a comprehensive assessment in years three or four of medical school. Of those, required remediation was the only consequence of failing employed by 61 schools (74%), and only 39 (47%) required retesting for graduation. Participants were somewhat satisfied with (mean 3.45 out of maximum 5, SD 1.08) and confident in (3.37, SD 1.17) their remediation process. Satisfaction and confidence were associated with requiring remediation (P = .003) and retesting (P < .001), but experience with the exam, exam infrastructure, and clerkship director involvement were not. No school demographic characteristics or measures of institutional commitment were related to external reporting of students' comprehensive assessment scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the prevalence of comprehensive assessments, schools attach few academic consequences to poor performance. Educators are only moderately satisfied with their efforts to remediate poor performers. However, schools with greater trust in their remediation process than other schools are more likely to enforce consequences of poor performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19704205     DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31819f9092

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  6 in total

1.  Competing duties: medical educators, underperforming students, and social accountability.

Authors:  Thalia Arawi; Philip M Rosoff
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2012-03-13       Impact factor: 1.352

2.  Justice and care: decision making by medical school student promotions committees.

Authors:  Emily P Green; Philip A Gruppuso
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 6.251

3.  Re-demonstration without remediation--a missed opportunity? A national survey of internal medicine clerkship directors.

Authors:  Mary R Hawthorne; Katherine C Chretien; Dario Torre; Shobhina G Chheda
Journal:  Med Educ Online       Date:  2014-12-10

4.  Early Pre-clerkship Clinical Skills Assessments Predict Clerkship Performance.

Authors:  Lindsay C Strowd; Hong Gao; Donna M Williams; Timothy R Peters; Jennifer Jackson
Journal:  Med Sci Educ       Date:  2022-03-01

5.  Association of clinical competence, specialty and physician country of origin with opioid prescribing for chronic pain: a cohort study.

Authors:  Robyn Tamblyn; Nadyne Girard; John Boulet; Dale Dauphinee; Bettina Habib
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 7.418

6.  Clinical-performance remediation program for dyscompetent medical students.

Authors:  Sun Jung Myung; Jae-June Yim; Sang Min Park; Jwa Seop Shin
Journal:  Korean J Med Educ       Date:  2013-06-30
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.