Sean T Campbell1, John P Kleimeyer2, Jeffrey L Young3, Michael J Gardner4, Kirkham B Wood5, Julius A Bishop6. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Electronic address: Campbellst87@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Electronic address: jpkleim@stanford.edu. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Electronic address: jlyoung@stanford.edu. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Electronic address: michaelgardner@stanford.edu. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Electronic address: kbwood@stanford.edu. 6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Electronic address: jabishop@stanford.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We asked the following questions: 1. Does the use of an structured review instrument (SRI) at journal club increase presentation quality, as measured objectively by a standardized evaluation rubric? 2. Does SRI use increase the time required to prepare for journal club? 3. Does SRI use positively impact presenter perceptions about confidence while presenting, satisfaction, and journal club effectiveness, as measured by postparticipation surveys? DESIGN: A prospective study was designed in which a grading rubric was developed to evaluate journal club presentations. The rubric was applied to 24 presentations at journal clubs prior to introduction of the SRI. An SRI was developed and distributed to journal club participants, who were instructed to use it to prepare for journal club. The grading rubric was then used to assess 25 post-SRI presentations and scores were compared between the pre- and post-SRI groups. Presentations occurred at either trauma, pediatrics, or spine subspecialty journal clubs. Participants were also surveyed regarding time requirements for preparation, perceptions of confidence while presenting, satisfaction, and perceptions of overall club effectiveness. SETTING: A single academic center with an orthopaedic surgery residency program. PARTICIPANTS: Resident physicians in the department of orthopaedic surgery. RESULTS: Mean presentation scores increased from 14.0 ± 5.9 (mean ± standard deviation) to 24.4 ± 5.2 after introduction of the SRI (p < 0.001). Preparation time decreased from a mean of 47 minutes to 40 minutes after SRI introduction (p = 0.22). Perceptions of confidence, satisfaction, and club effectiveness among trainees trended toward more positive responses after SRI introduction (confidence: 63% positive responses pre-SRI vs 72% post-SRI, p = 0.73; satisfaction: 64% vs 91%, p = 0.18; effectiveness: 64% vs 91%, p = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a structured review instrument to guide presentations at orthopaedic journal club increased presentation quality, and there was no difference in preparation time. There were trends toward improved presenter confidence, satisfaction, and perception of journal club effectiveness. SRI utilization at orthopaedic journal club may be an effective method for increasing the quality of journal club presentations. Future work should examine the relationship between presentation quality and overall club effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE: We asked the following questions: 1. Does the use of an structured review instrument (SRI) at journal club increase presentation quality, as measured objectively by a standardized evaluation rubric? 2. Does SRI use increase the time required to prepare for journal club? 3. Does SRI use positively impact presenter perceptions about confidence while presenting, satisfaction, and journal club effectiveness, as measured by postparticipation surveys? DESIGN: A prospective study was designed in which a grading rubric was developed to evaluate journal club presentations. The rubric was applied to 24 presentations at journal clubs prior to introduction of the SRI. An SRI was developed and distributed to journal clubparticipants, who were instructed to use it to prepare for journal club. The grading rubric was then used to assess 25 post-SRI presentations and scores were compared between the pre- and post-SRI groups. Presentations occurred at either trauma, pediatrics, or spine subspecialty journal clubs. Participants were also surveyed regarding time requirements for preparation, perceptions of confidence while presenting, satisfaction, and perceptions of overall club effectiveness. SETTING: A single academic center with an orthopaedic surgery residency program. PARTICIPANTS: Resident physicians in the department of orthopaedic surgery. RESULTS: Mean presentation scores increased from 14.0 ± 5.9 (mean ± standard deviation) to 24.4 ± 5.2 after introduction of the SRI (p < 0.001). Preparation time decreased from a mean of 47 minutes to 40 minutes after SRI introduction (p = 0.22). Perceptions of confidence, satisfaction, and club effectiveness among trainees trended toward more positive responses after SRI introduction (confidence: 63% positive responses pre-SRI vs 72% post-SRI, p = 0.73; satisfaction: 64% vs 91%, p = 0.18; effectiveness: 64% vs 91%, p = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a structured review instrument to guide presentations at orthopaedic journal club increased presentation quality, and there was no difference in preparation time. There were trends toward improved presenter confidence, satisfaction, and perception of journal club effectiveness. SRI utilization at orthopaedic journal club may be an effective method for increasing the quality of journal club presentations. Future work should examine the relationship between presentation quality and overall club effectiveness.
Keywords:
Interpersonal and Communication Skills; Medical Knowledge; Practice-Based Learning and Improvement; journal club; orthopaedic eduction; orthopaedic training; structured review instrument