Literature DB >> 33521494

Learner Perceptions of Electronic End-of-shift Evaluations on An Emergency Medicine Clerkship.

Jose V Nable1,2, Rahul Bhat1,2,3, Jacob Isserman1,3, Janet Smereck1,2, Matthew Wilson1,2,3, Kevin Maloy1,3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: As students on an emergency medicine (EM) rotation work with different faculty on a daily basis, EM clerkships often incorporate an end-of-shift evaluation to capture sufficient student performance data. Electronic shift evaluations have been shown to increase faculty completion compliance. This study aimed to examine learner perceptions of their individualized feedback during an EM clerkship following the adoption of an electronic evaluation tool.
METHODS: This retrospective study examined end-of-rotation surveys that students complete at the conclusion of their EM rotation. Survey respondents used a standard Likert scale (1-5). This study examined responses to the question: "The feedback I received on this rotation was adequate." The study period included the 3 academic years prior to and subsequent to the adoption of an electronic evaluation system (replacing paper end-of-shift evaluations). The primary outcome was the mean Likert score and the secondary outcome was the percentage of students who rated their feedback a "5" or "strongly agree."
RESULTS: A total of 491 students responded (83.9% response rate) to the survey during the paper evaluation period, while 427 responded (80.7% response rate) in the electronic period. The mean response improved from 4.02 (paper evaluations) to 4.22 (electronic evaluations; mean difference = 0.20, p < 0.05). The percentage of students who responded with a 5 improved (31% with paper evaluations vs. 41% with electronic evaluations, p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of an electronic end-of-shift evaluation system was associated with improved learner perception of their feedback as compared to paper evaluations. Electronic evaluations are a useful tool to gather just-in-time data on learner performance.
© 2020 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 33521494      PMCID: PMC7821058          DOI: 10.1002/aet2.10448

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AEM Educ Train        ISSN: 2472-5390


  7 in total

1.  The state of the clerkship: a survey of emergency medicine clerkship directors.

Authors:  David A Wald; David E Manthey; Linda Kruus; Matthew Tripp; Jeffrey Barrett; Bobby Amoroso
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2007-05-08       Impact factor: 3.451

2.  Bridging the Millennial Generation Expectation Gap: Perspectives and Strategies for Physician and Interprofessional Faculty.

Authors:  Valerie N Williams; Jose Medina; Andria Medina; Shari Clifton
Journal:  Am J Med Sci       Date:  2016-12-07       Impact factor: 2.378

3.  Effect of an educational intervention on faculty and resident satisfaction with real-time feedback in the emergency department.

Authors:  Lalena M Yarris; Rongwei Fu; Joseph LaMantia; Judith A Linden; H Gene Hern; Cedric Lefebvre; David M Nestler; Janis Tupesis; Nicholas Kman
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 3.451

4.  Making sense of feedback experiences: a multi-school study of medical students' narratives.

Authors:  Lynn M Urquhart; Charlotte E Rees; Jean S Ker
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 6.251

5.  Learning culture and feedback: an international study of medical athletes and musicians.

Authors:  Christopher Watling; Erik Driessen; Cees P M van der Vleuten; Lorelei Lingard
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 6.251

6.  The Integration of Electronic Medical Student Evaluations Into an Emergency Department Tracking System is Associated With Increased Quality and Quantity of Evaluations.

Authors:  David T Chiu; Joshua J Solano; Edward Ullman; Jennifer Pope; Carrie Tibbles; Steven Horng; Larry A Nathanson; Jonathan Fisher; Carlo L Rosen
Journal:  J Emerg Med       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 1.484

7.  Mid-clerkship feedback is effective in changing students' recorded patient encounters.

Authors:  John E Delzell; Heidi S Chumley; Amy L Clarkson
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 1.756

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.