M Ruesseler1, J Sterz2, B Bender3, S Hoefer3, F Walcher4. 1. Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt/Main, Germany. miriam.ruesseler@kgu.de. 2. Centre of Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt/Main, Germany. 3. Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt/Main, Germany. 4. Department of Trauma Surgery, Medical Faculty University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Feedback can significantly improve future performance. Reviewing one's performance by video is discussed as useful adjunct to debriefing, particularly for non-technical skills. Communicative competencies are an essential part of daily clinical practice; thus should be taught and assessed during undergraduate training. The aim of this study was to compare the educational value of video-assisted feedback versus oral feedback in communicative competencies in the surgical context. METHODS: Fourth-year medical students completed a 210-min training unit of 'taking patient's history and obtaining informed consents prior to surgery' using role plays. Oral feedback was received directly thereafter using agenda-led, outcome-based guidelines (ALOBA). In the study group, the role plays were video-taped and reviewed thereafter. Afterwards, students completed two OSCE stations, where they were assessed regarding their communicative competencies and the content of the clinical scenario. RESULTS:One-hundred students (49 receiving video-assisted feedback, 51 oral) participated in the study. Those receiving video-assisted feedback performed significantly better in overall score in both OSCE stations (p < 0.001), in all five assessed communicative competencies at taking patient history (p = 0.029 or better), and in 2 of 5 items at obtaining informed consent (p = 0.008, <0.001). The educational effect size for both tasks was large. CONCLUSION: Using our methodology, video-assisted feedback offered a significant educational benefit over oral feedback alone during a simulated patient encounter in a surgical context.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Feedback can significantly improve future performance. Reviewing one's performance by video is discussed as useful adjunct to debriefing, particularly for non-technical skills. Communicative competencies are an essential part of daily clinical practice; thus should be taught and assessed during undergraduate training. The aim of this study was to compare the educational value of video-assisted feedback versus oral feedback in communicative competencies in the surgical context. METHODS: Fourth-year medical students completed a 210-min training unit of 'taking patient's history and obtaining informed consents prior to surgery' using role plays. Oral feedback was received directly thereafter using agenda-led, outcome-based guidelines (ALOBA). In the study group, the role plays were video-taped and reviewed thereafter. Afterwards, students completed two OSCE stations, where they were assessed regarding their communicative competencies and the content of the clinical scenario. RESULTS: One-hundred students (49 receiving video-assisted feedback, 51 oral) participated in the study. Those receiving video-assisted feedback performed significantly better in overall score in both OSCE stations (p < 0.001), in all five assessed communicative competencies at taking patient history (p = 0.029 or better), and in 2 of 5 items at obtaining informed consent (p = 0.008, <0.001). The educational effect size for both tasks was large. CONCLUSION: Using our methodology, video-assisted feedback offered a significant educational benefit over oral feedback alone during a simulated patient encounter in a surgical context.
Authors: P W Teunissen; F Scheele; A J J A Scherpbier; C P M van der Vleuten; K Boor; S J van Luijk; J A A M van Diemen-Steenvoorde Journal: Med Educ Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 6.251
Authors: Kathryn M Tchorz; S Bruce Binder; Mary T White; Larry W Lawhorne; Deborah M Bentley; Elizabeth A Delaney; Jerome Borchers; Melanie Miller; Linda M Barney; Margaret M Dunn; Kenneth W Rundell; Thavm Thambipillai; Randy J Woods; Ronald J Markert; Priti P Parikh; Mary C McCarthy Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2013-06-22 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Martin von Fragstein; Jonathan Silverman; Annie Cushing; Sally Quilligan; Helen Salisbury; Connie Wiskin Journal: Med Educ Date: 2008-08-21 Impact factor: 6.251
Authors: Conor Gilligan; Martine Powell; Marita C Lynagh; Bernadette M Ward; Chris Lonsdale; Pam Harvey; Erica L James; Dominique Rich; Sari P Dewi; Smriti Nepal; Hayley A Croft; Jonathan Silverman Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-02-08
Authors: Bhone Myint Kyaw; Pawel Posadzki; Sophie Paddock; Josip Car; James Campbell; Lorainne Tudor Car Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-08-27 Impact factor: 5.428