Krautter Markus, Diefenbacher Katja, Schultz Jobst-Hendrik, Maatouk Imad, Herrmann-Werner Anne, Koehl-Hackert Nadja, Herzog Wolfgang, Nikendei Christoph
Department of Nephrology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Department of General Internal Medicine and Psychosomatics, University of Heidelberg, Medical Centre, Heidelberg, Germany.
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 10;12(7):e0180308. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180308. eCollection 2017.
Standardized patients are widely used in training of medical students, both in teaching and assessment. They also frequently lead complete training sessions delivering physical examination skills without the aid of faculty teaching staff-acting as "patient instructors" (PIs). An important part of this training is their ability to provide detailed structured feedback to students which has a strong impact on their learning success. Yet, to date no study has assessed the quality of physical examination related feedback by PIs. Therefore, we conducted a randomized controlled study comparing feedback of PIs and faculty staff following a physical examination assessed by students and video assessors.
14 PIs and 14 different faculty staff physicians both delivered feedback to 40 medical students that had performed a physical examination on the respective PI while the physicians observed the performance. The physical examination was rated by two independent video assessors to provide an objective performance standard (gold standard). Feedback of PI and physicians was content analyzed by two different independent video assessors based on a provided checklist and compared to the performance standard. Feedback of PIs and physicians was also rated by medical students and video assessors using a questionnaire consisting of 12 items.
There was no statistical significant difference concerning overall matching of physician or PI feedback with gold standard ratings by video assessment (p = .219). There was also no statistical difference when focusing only on items that were classified as major key steps (p = .802), mistakes or parts that were left out during physical examination (p = .219) or mistakes in communication items (p = .517). The feedback of physicians was significantly better rated than PI feedback both by students (p = .043) as well as by video assessors (p = .034).
In summary, our study demonstrates that trained PIs are able to provide feedback of equal quantitative value to that of faculty staff physicians with regard to a physical examination performed on them. However, both the students and the video raters judged the quality of the feedback given by the physicians to be significantly better than that of the PIs.
标准化病人在医学生培训中广泛应用于教学和评估。他们还经常在没有教师指导的情况下主持完整的培训课程,教授体格检查技能,充当“患者指导者”(PI)。这种培训的一个重要部分是他们向学生提供详细结构化反馈的能力,这对学生的学习成功有很大影响。然而,迄今为止,尚无研究评估PI提供的体格检查相关反馈的质量。因此,我们进行了一项随机对照研究,比较PI和教师在学生和视频评估者对体格检查进行评估后的反馈。
14名PI和14名不同的教师医生分别向40名医学生提供反馈,这些医学生在PI身上进行了体格检查,同时医生观察了检查过程。体格检查由两名独立的视频评估者进行评分,以提供客观的表现标准(金标准)。PI和医生的反馈由两名不同的独立视频评估者根据提供的清单进行内容分析,并与表现标准进行比较。PI和医生的反馈也由医学生和视频评估者使用一份包含12个条目的问卷进行评分。
通过视频评估,医生或PI的反馈与金标准评分在总体匹配方面无统计学显著差异(p = 0.219)。仅关注被归类为主要关键步骤的项目(p = 0.802)、体格检查期间遗漏的错误或部分(p = 0.219)或沟通项目中的错误(p = 0.517)时,也无统计学差异。学生(p = 0.043)和视频评估者(p = 0.034)对医生反馈的评分均显著高于PI反馈。
总之,我们的研究表明,经过培训的PI能够就对他们进行的体格检查提供与教师医生同等数量价值的反馈。然而,学生和视频评分者都认为医生提供的反馈质量明显优于PI。