Daniel S Kronenfeld1, Joshua P Kronenfeld2. 1. Department of Surgery, 2042Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA. 2. DeWitt Daughtry Family Department of Surgery, 12235University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.
We greatly appreciate the comments provided through the letter to the editor by Pandey et
al in response to our manuscript entitled ‘Medical Student Education During COVID-19
Electronic Education Does Not Decrease Examination Scores’.[1] The authors of this letter to the
editor have raised several thoughtful considerations that should be addressed. While
their comments offer important insight into the challenges of remote education, we
believe that this article is still particularly relevant as we continue to make our way
out of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and students remain in need of educational
content.The first point requiring discussion is that medical students and future physicians must
develop interpersonal skills that will be utilized when communicating with patients as
well as colleagues in their future careers. While this is an important consideration,
and a potential drawback from remote education, the electronic problem-based learning
sessions discussed in the original article were only meant to supplement learning when
in person education was unavailable. Additionally, while Pandey et al discussed a recent
study demonstrating decreased interactions between peers and limited opportunities for
feedback through electronic education, other studies have demonstrated improved
discussions via electronic education which may be facilitated by greater comfort
experienced by the learners.[2,3] In
an electronic setting, students may feel less pressure when engaging in discussions and
may be less embarrassed if they make an incorrect statement.An additional concern raised by Pandey et al is that there was no mention of the
challenges faced by students while engaging with the electronic platforms. The survey
did not specifically inquire about these challenges, but an open-ended question was
included to elicit any suggestions for future electronic problem-based learning and
lecture sessions. Regarding the electronic platform, there were 2 relevant challenges
disclosed. One student, in the first electronic education block, recommended that
students should have their videos engaged to better interact with each other. This was
addressed in subsequent blocks by requiring student to utilize video during session.
Another student suggested smaller learning groups to facilitate a more intimate
discussion. While this was unable to be addressed due to a paucity of available
facilitators, additional residents have been recruited to allow for smaller group sizes
in the future.A final point made by the authors is that no feedback was obtained by preceptors to
indicate if the students subjected to electronic teaching modalities had decreased
clinical acumen. Unfortunately, these data points were not obtained during this study,
but we agree it would have been beneficial to have been able to include this
information.We are grateful for the detailed review of our article the authors Pandey et al have
provided and hope to have addressed some of their concerns. While there are certainly
improvements that could be made to future studies, we feel that this is a significant
contribution to the literature. Medical student clinical education for students on their
surgical clerkship can effectively be conducted remotely, and students do not have a
preference between in-person and electronic sessions. Additionally, their objective
examination scores did not change with the transition to electronic education suggesting
that this modality of learning may be an acceptable alternative in times of medical
crisis when in-person learning may not be available. Continued investigations into the
long-term outcomes of electronic education are needed in future studies.
Authors: Carlos Theodore Huerta; Rebecca A Saberi; Chad M Thorson; Vanessa W Hui; Steven E Rodgers; Laurence R Sands Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2022-10-11 Impact factor: 3.524