| Literature DB >> 35284196 |
Nurdiana Jamil1, Izyan A Wahab2, Nurul Ashikin Jamludin1, Shairyzah Ahmad Hisham1.
Abstract
Restrictions in face-to-face contact during the COVID-19 pandemic have necessitated the conversion to online teaching-learning activities. To assess relevant competencies of a Master's in Clinical Pharmacy student cohort, an online tele-objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) was developed and conducted using Microsoft Teams®. Afterward, a survey was conducted to determine the acceptance of tele-OSCE by students and faculty members. Students' performance was also compared to a previous cohort that underwent face-to-face OSCE. The majority of students generally agreed that tele-OSCE was operationally easy to undertake (94.0%) and did not deter their exam performance. The majority of faculty members also generally agreed that the online platform did not deter the assessment of students' performance and a minority disagreed on the ease of assessing counselling tasks or calculation work (13.0%). There was no statistically significant difference in students' overall scores between the tele-OSCE and the face-to-face cohort (p > 0.05). A thoughtfully planned tele-OSCE is a feasible method of examination that allows acceptable assessment of attained clinical competencies when social distancing measures are mandated. Stakeholders should look towards fortifying IT and online platform access to support optimal emergency remote teaching.Entities:
Keywords: Clinical pharmacy; Emergency remote teaching; OSCE; Pharmacy education; Tele-OSCE
Year: 2022 PMID: 35284196 PMCID: PMC8897727 DOI: 10.1007/s40670-022-01527-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Educ ISSN: 2156-8650
Roles and responsibilities of individuals involved during Master’s in Clinical Pharmacy tele-OSCE
| Roles | Tasks |
|---|---|
| Tele-OSCE manager | Ensuring smooth flow of students at dedicated stations and troubleshooting of technical issues |
| Question provider | Preparing tele-OSCE question |
| Assessor | Assessing students during delivery of tele-OSCEs task |
| Simulated actor | Simulated actor for required roles during tele-OSCE simulated clinical encounter |
Description of OSCE tasks at each station and corresponding domain of learning
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Course learning outcomes | To demonstrate competency in interpreting patient’s clinical and laboratory data and recommend appropriate management in critical care therapeutics | To explain the pathophysiology of common musculoskeletal diseases and their management principles | To demonstrate competency in interpreting patient’s clinical and laboratory data and recommend appropriate management in oncology therapeutics | To explain the pathophysiology of common cancers and their management principles | To demonstrate competency in interpreting patient’s clinical and laboratory data and recommend appropriate management in special populations | To explain the pathophysiology of common conditions affecting special populations and their management principles |
| Domain of learning | P | A | P | A | P | A |
| OSCE tasks and setting | Responding to nurse’s inquiries on inotrope dilution | Counselling on malfunctioning teriparatide injection device | Responding to physician’s inquiries on chemotherapy dosing calculations and monitoring parameters | Counselling on conception concerns in a patient undergoing chemotherapy | Responding to physician’s inquiries on aspirin therapy in paediatric Kawasaki disease | Counselling on anxiety and insomnia in an elderly |
P, psychomotor; A, affective
Students’ response to tele-OSCE (N = 17)
| Domain | Statements | SA (%) | A (%) | N (%) | D (%) | SD (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 41 | 53 | 0 | 6 | 0 | ||
| 35 | 47 | 0 | 12 | 6 | ||
| 0 | 29 | 0 | 47 | 24 | ||
| 41 | 41 | 0 | 12 | 6 | ||
| 29 | 47 | 0 | 18 | 6 | ||
| 18 | 18 | 47 | 12 | 6 | ||
| 29 | 53 | 0 | 18 | 0 | ||
| 18 | 41 | 0 | 41 | 0 | ||
| 47 | 35 | 0 | 18 | 0 | ||
| 53 | 35 | 0 | 12 | 0 | ||
| 35 | 53 | 0 | 12 | 0 |
SA, strongly agree; A, agree; N, neutral; D, disagree; SD, strongly disagree
Assessors/actors’ responses to tele-OSCE (N = 16)
| Domain | Statement | SA (%) | A (%) | N (%) | D (%) | SD (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 38 | 62 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 38 | 25 | 0 | 38 | 0 | ||
| 19 | 31 | 44 | 6 | 0 | ||
| 13 | 69 | 0 | 13 | 6 | ||
| 6 | 63 | 0 | 31 | 0 | ||
| 0 | 88 | 0 | 13 | 0 | ||
| 6 | 75 | 0 | 13 | 6 | ||
| 63 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 44 | 56 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
SA, strongly agree; A, agree; N, neutral; D, disagree; SD, strongly disagree
Comparison of students’ performance between face-to-face OSCE (2018/2019) and tele-OSCE (2019/2020)
| Courses | P5242 | P5252 | P5262 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cohort | 2018/2019 | 2019/2020 | 2018/2019 | 2019/2020 | 2018/2019 | 2019/2020 |
| Maximum score | 8.51 | 8.33 | 7.28 | 9.00 | 7.69 | 8.88 |
| Minimum score | 4.87 | 2.65 | 4.25 | 2.75 | 3.12 | 4.02 |
| Mean score | 6.22 | 6.40 | 5.86 | 6.79 | 5.24 | 6.42 |
| Standard deviation | 1.12 | 1.43 | 0.94 | 1.63 | 1.72 | 1.70 |
| 0.739 | 0.176 | 0.155 | ||||
aIndependent t-test; P5242, pharmacotherapeutics IV (critical care); P5252, pharmacotherapeutics V (oncology); P5262, pharmacotherapeutics VI (special populations)