Literature DB >> 29634302

Differences in Faculty and Standardized Patient Scores on Professionalism for Second-Year Podiatric Medical Students During a Standardized Simulated Patient Encounter.

James M Mahoney, Vassilios Vardaxis, Noreen Anwar, Jacob Hagenbucher.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study examined the differences between faculty and trained standardized patient (SP) evaluations on student professionalism during a second-year podiatric medicine standardized simulated patient encounter.
METHODS: Forty-nine second-year podiatric medicine students were evaluated for their professionalism behavior. Eleven SPs performed an assessment in real-time, and one faculty member performed a secondary assessment after observing a videotape of the encounter. Five domains were chosen for evaluation from a validated professionalism assessment tool.
RESULTS: Significant differences were identified in the professionalism domains of "build a relationship" ( P = .008), "gather information" ( P = .001), and share information ( P = .002), where the faculty scored the students higher than the SP for 24.5%, 18.9%, and 26.5% of the cases, respectively. In addition, the faculty scores were higher than the SP scores in all of the "gather information" subdomains; however, the difference in scores was significant only in the "question appropriately" ( P = .001) and "listen and clarify" ( P = .003) subdomains.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that professionalism scores for second-year podiatric medical students during a simulated patient encounter varied significantly between faculty and SPs. Further consideration needs to be given to determine the source of these differences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29634302      PMCID: PMC6373866          DOI: 10.7547/15-175

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Podiatr Med Assoc        ISSN: 1930-8264


  22 in total

1.  Relationship between clinical competence and interpersonal and communication skills in standardized-patient assessment.

Authors:  J A Colliver; M H Swartz; R S Robbs; D S Cohen
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 6.893

Review 2.  Context, conflict, and resolution: a new conceptual framework for evaluating professionalism.

Authors:  S Ginsburg; G Regehr; R Hatala; N McNaughton; A Frohna; B Hodges; L Lingard; D Stern
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 6.893

Review 3.  Assessing professional behavior: yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Authors:  Louise Arnold
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 6.893

4.  Ethical and professional conduct of medical students: review of current assessment measures and controversies.

Authors:  K Boon; J Turner
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 2.903

5.  Assessing communication competence: a review of current tools.

Authors:  Julie M Schirmer; Larry Mauksch; Forrest Lang; M Kim Marvel; Kathy Zoppi; Ronald M Epstein; Doug Brock; Michael Pryzbylski
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 1.756

6.  Disciplinary action by medical boards and prior behavior in medical school.

Authors:  Maxine A Papadakis; Arianne Teherani; Mary A Banach; Timothy R Knettler; Susan L Rattner; David T Stern; J Jon Veloski; Carol S Hodgson
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-12-22       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Using a standardised patient assessment to measure professional attributes.

Authors:  Marta van Zanten; John R Boulet; John J Norcini; Danette McKinley
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 6.251

Review 8.  A systematic review of studies assessing and facilitating attitudes towards professionalism in medicine.

Authors:  Vikram Jha; Hilary L Bekker; Sean Rg Duffy; Trudie E Roberts
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 6.251

Review 9.  Essential elements of communication in medical encounters: the Kalamazoo consensus statement.

Authors:  G Makoul
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 6.893

10.  Comprehensive assessment of professional competence: the Rochester experiment.

Authors:  Ronald M Epstein; Elaine F Dannefer; Anne C Nofziger; John T Hansen; Stephen H Schultz; Nicholas Jospe; Laura W Connard; Sean C Meldrum; Lindsey C Henson
Journal:  Teach Learn Med       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.414

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.