Rodrigo Tejos1, Fernando Crovari1, Pablo Achurra1, Ruben Avila1, Martín Inzunza1, Cristian Jarry1, Jorge Martinez1, Arnoldo Riquelme2, Adnan Alseidi3, Julian Varas4. 1. Experimental Surgery and Simulation Center, Department of Digestive Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Marcoleta 377, 8330024, Santiago, Chile. 2. Department of Gastroenterology and Centre for Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Diagonal Paraguay 362, 8330077, Santiago, Chile. 3. Department of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, 400 Parnassus Ave, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. 4. Experimental Surgery and Simulation Center, Department of Digestive Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Marcoleta 377, 8330024, Santiago, Chile. jevaras@uc.cl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Feedback is a pivotal cornerstone and a challenge in psychomotor training. There are different teaching methodologies; however, some may be less effective. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted in 130 medical students to compare the effectiveness of the video-guided learning (VLG), peer-feedback (PFG) and the expert feedback (EFG) for teaching suturing skills. The program lasted 4 weeks. Students were recorded making 3-simple stitches (pre-assessment and post-assessment). The primary outcome was a global scale (OSATS). The secondary outcomes were performance time, specific rating scale (SRS) and the impact of the intervention (IOI), defined as the variation between the final and initial OSATS and SRS scores. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between PFG and EFG in post-assessment results of OSATS, SRS scores or in the IOI for OSATS and SRS scores. Post-assessment results of PFG and EFG were significantly superior to VLG in OSATS and SRS scores [(19.8 (18.5-21); 16.6 (15.5-17.5)) and (20.3 (19.88-21); 16.8 (16-17.5)) vs (15.7 (15-16); 13.3 (12.5-14)) (p < 0.05)], respectively. The results of PFG and EFG were significantly superior to VLG in the IOI for OSATS [7 (4.5-9) and 7.4 (4.88-10) vs 3.5 (1.5-6) (p < 0.05)] and SRS scores [5.4 (3.5-7) and 6.3 (4-8.5) vs 3.1 (1.13-4.88) (p < 0.05)], respectively. CONCLUSION: The video-guided learning methodology without any kind of feedback is not enough for teaching suturing skills compared to expert or peer feedback. The peer feedback methodology appears to be a viable alternative to handling the emerging demands in medical education.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Feedback is a pivotal cornerstone and a challenge in psychomotor training. There are different teaching methodologies; however, some may be less effective. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted in 130 medical students to compare the effectiveness of the video-guided learning (VLG), peer-feedback (PFG) and the expert feedback (EFG) for teaching suturing skills. The program lasted 4 weeks. Students were recorded making 3-simple stitches (pre-assessment and post-assessment). The primary outcome was a global scale (OSATS). The secondary outcomes were performance time, specific rating scale (SRS) and the impact of the intervention (IOI), defined as the variation between the final and initial OSATS and SRS scores. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between PFG and EFG in post-assessment results of OSATS, SRS scores or in the IOI for OSATS and SRS scores. Post-assessment results of PFG and EFG were significantly superior to VLG in OSATS and SRS scores [(19.8 (18.5-21); 16.6 (15.5-17.5)) and (20.3 (19.88-21); 16.8 (16-17.5)) vs (15.7 (15-16); 13.3 (12.5-14)) (p < 0.05)], respectively. The results of PFG and EFG were significantly superior to VLG in the IOI for OSATS [7 (4.5-9) and 7.4 (4.88-10) vs 3.5 (1.5-6) (p < 0.05)] and SRS scores [5.4 (3.5-7) and 6.3 (4-8.5) vs 3.1 (1.13-4.88) (p < 0.05)], respectively. CONCLUSION: The video-guided learning methodology without any kind of feedback is not enough for teaching suturing skills compared to expert or peer feedback. The peer feedback methodology appears to be a viable alternative to handling the emerging demands in medical education.
Authors: George J Xeroulis; Jason Park; Carol-Anne Moulton; Richard K Reznick; Vicki Leblanc; Adam Dubrowski Journal: Surgery Date: 2007-01-25 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Yasuharu Okuda; Ethan O Bryson; Samuel DeMaria; Lisa Jacobson; Joshua Quinones; Bing Shen; Adam I Levine Journal: Mt Sinai J Med Date: 2009-08
Authors: Carolyn M Audet; Bryan E Shepherd; Muktar H Aliyu; Mosa Moshabela; Mariah J Pettapiece-Phillips; Ryan G Wagner Journal: Glob Health Action Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 2.640
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