Johanna Sommer1, Cédric Lanier2, Noelle Junod Perron3, Mathieu Nendaz4, Diane Clavet5, Marie-Claude Audétat6. 1. Primary care unit, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: johanna.sommer@unige.ch. 2. Primary care unit, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; Department of community medicine, primary care and emergencies, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: cedric.lanier@unige.ch. 3. Department of community medicine, primary care and emergencies, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland; Unit of development and research in medical education, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: noelle.junod@hcuge.ch. 4. Unit of development and research in medical education, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; Service of General Internal Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: mathieu.nendaz@hcuge.ch. 5. Center for health sciences education, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada. Electronic address: diane.clavet@usherbrooke.ca. 6. Primary care unit, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; Family medicine and Emergency Department, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada. Electronic address: marie-claude.audetat@unige.ch.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a descriptive tool for peer review of clinical teaching skills. Two analogies framed our research: (1) between the patient-centered and the learner-centered approach; (2) between the structures of clinical encounters (Calgary-Cambridge communication model) and teaching sessions. METHOD: During the course of one year, each step of the action research was carried out in collaboration with twelve clinical teachers from an outpatient general internal medicine clinic and with three experts in medical education. The content validation consisted of a literature review, expert opinion and the participatory research process. Interrater reliability was evaluated by three clinical teachers coding thirty audiotaped standardized learner-teacher interactions. RESULTS: This tool contains sixteen items covering the process and content of clinical supervisions. Descriptors define the expected teaching behaviors for three levels of competence. Interrater reliability was significant for eleven items (Kendall's coefficient p<0.05). CONCLUSION: This peer assessment tool has high reliability and can be used to facilitate the acquisition of teaching skills.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a descriptive tool for peer review of clinical teaching skills. Two analogies framed our research: (1) between the patient-centered and the learner-centered approach; (2) between the structures of clinical encounters (Calgary-Cambridge communication model) and teaching sessions. METHOD: During the course of one year, each step of the action research was carried out in collaboration with twelve clinical teachers from an outpatient general internal medicine clinic and with three experts in medical education. The content validation consisted of a literature review, expert opinion and the participatory research process. Interrater reliability was evaluated by three clinical teachers coding thirty audiotaped standardized learner-teacher interactions. RESULTS: This tool contains sixteen items covering the process and content of clinical supervisions. Descriptors define the expected teaching behaviors for three levels of competence. Interrater reliability was significant for eleven items (Kendall's coefficient p<0.05). CONCLUSION: This peer assessment tool has high reliability and can be used to facilitate the acquisition of teaching skills.
Authors: Charlotte Denniston; Elizabeth Molloy; Debra Nestel; Robyn Woodward-Kron; Jennifer L Keating Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-04-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Christina Østervang; Annmarie Touborg Lassen; Katrine Øelund; Elisabeth Coyne; Karin Brochstedt Dieperink; Charlotte Myhre Jensen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 2.692