Wissam Al-Jundi1, Mohamed Elsharif2, Melanie Anderson2, Phillip Chan3, Jonathan Beard3, Shah Nawaz3. 1. Sheffield Vascular Institute, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom; Academic Unit of Medical Education, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom. Electronic address: waljundi@hotmail.com. 2. Sheffield Vascular Institute, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom. 3. Sheffield Vascular Institute, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom; Academic Unit of Medical Education, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Constructive feedback plays an important role in learning during surgical training. Standard feedback is usually given verbally following direct observation of the procedure by a trained assessor. However, such feedback requires the physical presence of expert faculty members who are usually busy and time-constrained by clinical commitments. We aim to evaluate electronic feedback (e-feedback) after video observation of surgical suturing in comparison with standard face-to-face verbal feedback. METHODS: A prospective, blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing e-feedback with standard verbal feedback was carried out in February 2015 using a validated pro formas for assessment. The study participants were 38 undergraduate medical students from the University of Sheffield, UK. They were recorded on video performing the procedural skill, completed a self-evaluation form, and received e-feedback on the same day (group 1); observed directly by an assessor, invited to provide verbal self-reflection, and then received standard verbal feedback (group 2). In both groups, the feedback was provided after performing the procedure. The participants returned 2 days later and performed the same skill again. Poststudy questionnaire was used to assess the acceptability of each feedback among the participants. RESULTS: Overall, 19 students in group 1 and 18 students in group 2 completed the study. Although there was a significant improvement in the overall mean score on the second performance of the task for all participants (first performance mean 11.59, second performance mean 15.95; p ≤ 0.0001), there was no difference in the overall mean improvement score between group 1 and group 2 (4.74 and 3.94, respectively; p = 0.49). The mean overall scores for the e-feedback group at baseline recorded by 2 independent investigators showed good agreement (mean overall scores of 12.84 and 11.89; Cronbach α = 0.86). Poststudy questionnaire demonstrated that both e-feedback and standard verbal feedback achieved high mean Likert grades as recorded by the participants (4.42 [range: 2-5] and 4.71 [range: 4-5], respectively; p = 0.274). CONCLUSION:e-Feedback after watching a video recording appears to be acceptable and is not quantitatively different than standard feedback in improving suturing skills among novice trainees. Video assessment of procedural skills is reliable. Crown
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Constructive feedback plays an important role in learning during surgical training. Standard feedback is usually given verbally following direct observation of the procedure by a trained assessor. However, such feedback requires the physical presence of expert faculty members who are usually busy and time-constrained by clinical commitments. We aim to evaluate electronic feedback (e-feedback) after video observation of surgical suturing in comparison with standard face-to-face verbal feedback. METHODS: A prospective, blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing e-feedback with standard verbal feedback was carried out in February 2015 using a validated pro formas for assessment. The study participants were 38 undergraduate medical students from the University of Sheffield, UK. They were recorded on video performing the procedural skill, completed a self-evaluation form, and received e-feedback on the same day (group 1); observed directly by an assessor, invited to provide verbal self-reflection, and then received standard verbal feedback (group 2). In both groups, the feedback was provided after performing the procedure. The participants returned 2 days later and performed the same skill again. Poststudy questionnaire was used to assess the acceptability of each feedback among the participants. RESULTS: Overall, 19 students in group 1 and 18 students in group 2 completed the study. Although there was a significant improvement in the overall mean score on the second performance of the task for all participants (first performance mean 11.59, second performance mean 15.95; p ≤ 0.0001), there was no difference in the overall mean improvement score between group 1 and group 2 (4.74 and 3.94, respectively; p = 0.49). The mean overall scores for the e-feedback group at baseline recorded by 2 independent investigators showed good agreement (mean overall scores of 12.84 and 11.89; Cronbach α = 0.86). Poststudy questionnaire demonstrated that both e-feedback and standard verbal feedback achieved high mean Likert grades as recorded by the participants (4.42 [range: 2-5] and 4.71 [range: 4-5], respectively; p = 0.274). CONCLUSION: e-Feedback after watching a video recording appears to be acceptable and is not quantitatively different than standard feedback in improving suturing skills among novice trainees. Video assessment of procedural skills is reliable. Crown
Keywords:
Interpersonal and Communication Skills; Practice-Based Learning and Improvement; Professionalism; e-learning; feedback; procedural skills; surgical training; video recording
Authors: Chris Gibbons; Ian Porter; Daniela C Gonçalves-Bradley; Stanimir Stoilov; Ignacio Ricci-Cabello; Elena Tsangaris; Jaheeda Gangannagaripalli; Antoinette Davey; Elizabeth J Gibbons; Anna Kotzeva; Jonathan Evans; Philip J van der Wees; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Joanne Greenhalgh; Peter Bower; Jordi Alonso; Jose M Valderas Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-10-12
Authors: Arjun Nathan; Sonam Patel; Maria Georgi; Monty Fricker; Aqua Asif; Alexander Ng; William Mullins; Man Kien Hang; Alexander Light; Senthil Nathan; Nader Francis; John Kelly; Justin Collins; Ashwin Sridhar Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2022-10-17