Craig I Nesbitt1, Alexander W Phillips2, Roger F Searle3, Gerard Stansby4. 1. Northern Vascular Centre, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom. Electronic address: craigiainnesbitt@gmail.com. 2. Northern Oesophagogastric Centre, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom. 3. School of Medical Sciences Education Development, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom. 4. Northern Vascular Centre, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Feedback is a vital component of the learning process; however, great variation exists in the quality, quantity, and method of delivery. Video feedback is not commonly used in the teaching of surgical skills. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the benefit of 2 types of video feedback-individualized video feedback (IVF), with the student reviewing their performance with an expert tutor, and unsupervised video-enhanced feedback (UVF), where the student reviews their own performance together with an expert teaching video-to determine if these improve performance when compared with a standard lecture feedback. METHODS: A prospective blinded randomized control trial comparing lecture feedback with IVF and UVF was carried out. Students were scored by 2 experts directly observing the performance and 2 blinded experts using a validated pro forma. Participants were recorded on video when performing a suturing task. They then received their feedback via any of the 3 methods before being invited to repeat the task. RESULTS:A total of 32 students were recruited between the 3 groups. There was no significant difference in suturing skill performance scores given by those directly observing the students and those blinded to the participant. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 video feedback groups (p = 1.000), but there was significant improvement between standard lecture feedback and UVF (p = 0.047) and IVF (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION:Video feedback can facilitate greater learning of clinical skills. Students can attain a similar level of surgical skills improvement with UVF as with teacher-intensive IVF.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Feedback is a vital component of the learning process; however, great variation exists in the quality, quantity, and method of delivery. Video feedback is not commonly used in the teaching of surgical skills. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the benefit of 2 types of video feedback-individualized video feedback (IVF), with the student reviewing their performance with an expert tutor, and unsupervised video-enhanced feedback (UVF), where the student reviews their own performance together with an expert teaching video-to determine if these improve performance when compared with a standard lecture feedback. METHODS: A prospective blinded randomized control trial comparing lecture feedback with IVF and UVF was carried out. Students were scored by 2 experts directly observing the performance and 2 blinded experts using a validated pro forma. Participants were recorded on video when performing a suturing task. They then received their feedback via any of the 3 methods before being invited to repeat the task. RESULTS: A total of 32 students were recruited between the 3 groups. There was no significant difference in suturing skill performance scores given by those directly observing the students and those blinded to the participant. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 video feedback groups (p = 1.000), but there was significant improvement between standard lecture feedback and UVF (p = 0.047) and IVF (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Video feedback can facilitate greater learning of clinical skills. Students can attain a similar level of surgical skills improvement with UVF as with teacher-intensive IVF.
Authors: Ricardo Lira; Juan Salas-Morales; Luis Leiva; Rene de la Fuente; Ricardo Fuentes; Alejandro Delfino; Claudia Hurtado Nazal; Marcos Sepúlveda; Michael Arias; Valeria Herskovic; Jorge Munoz-Gama Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-05-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: William Green; Muhammad Waseem Shahzad; Stephen Wood; Maria Martinez Martinez; Andrew Baines; Ahmad Navid; Robert Jay; Zara Whysall; John Sandars; Rakesh Patel Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2020-05-18 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Geneviève Chartrand; Mikael Soucisse; Pierre Dubé; Jean-Sébastien Trépanier; Pierre Drolet; Lucas Sideris Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Lukas B Seifert; Carlos Herrera-Vizcaino; Philipp Herguth; Jasmina Sterz; Robert Sader Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 2.463