University of Kentucky, Department of Emergency Medicine, Lexington, Kentucky.
Skagit Valley Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Mount Vernon, Washington.
West J Emerg Med. 2019 Jan;20(1):163-169. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2018.10.39641. Epub 2018 Nov 26.
Videoconferencing has been employed in numerous medical education settings ranging from remote supervision of medical trainees to conducting residency interviews. However, no studies have yet documented the utility of and student response to videoconference meetings for mid-clerkship feedback (MCF) sessions required by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME).
From March 2017 to June 2018, third-year medical students rotating through the mandatory, four-week emergency medicine (EM) clerkship at a single medical school were randomly assigned either to a web-based videoconference meeting via Google Hangouts, or to a traditional in-person meeting for their MCF session. To compare students' MCF experiences we sent out an electronic survey afterward to assess the following using a 0-100 sliding scale: overall satisfaction with the meeting; the effectiveness of communication; the helpfulness of the meeting; their stress levels, and the convenience of their meeting location. The survey also collected data on these demographic variables: the name of the faculty member with whom the student met; student gender, age, and interest in EM; location prior to meeting; meeting-method preference; and number of EM shifts completed.
During the study period, 133 third-year medical students responded to the survey. When comparing survey responses between individuals who met online and in person, we did not detect a difference in demographics with the exception of preferred meeting method (p=0.0225). We found no significant differences in the overall experience, helpfulness of the meeting, or stress levels of the meeting between those who met via videoconference vs. in-person (p=0.9909; p=0.8420; p=0.2352, respectively). However, individuals who met in-person with a faculty member rated effectiveness of communication higher than those who met via videoconference (p=0.0002), while those who met online rated convenience higher than those who met in-person (p<0.0001). Both effects remained significant after controlling for preferred meeting method (p<0.0001 and p=0.0003, respectively) and among EM-bound students (p=.0423 and p<0.0110, respectively).
Our results suggest that LCME-required MCF sessions can be successfully conducted via web-based programs such as Google Hangouts without jeopardizing overall meeting experience. While the convenience of the meetings was improved, it is also important for clerkship directors to note the perceived deficit in the effectiveness of communication with videoconferencing.
视频会议已应用于众多医学教育环境中,从远程监督医学生到进行住院医师面试。然而,目前尚无研究记录视频会议对于医学教育联络委员会(LCME)要求的中期临床反馈(MCF)会议的实用性和学生的反应。
从 2017 年 3 月至 2018 年 6 月,在一所医学院的强制性四周急诊医学(EM)实习期间,三年级医学生被随机分配到通过 Google Hangouts 进行基于网络的视频会议,或传统的面对面会议,进行他们的 MCF 会议。为了比较学生的 MCF 体验,我们在会议后发送了一份电子调查,使用 0-100 的滑动量表评估以下内容:对会议的总体满意度;沟通的有效性;会议的有益性;他们的压力水平以及会议地点的便利性。该调查还收集了以下人口统计学变量的数据:与学生见面的教员的姓名;学生的性别、年龄和对 EM 的兴趣;会议前的位置;会议方法偏好;以及完成的 EM 班次数量。
在研究期间,有 133 名三年级医学生对调查做出了回应。当比较在线和面对面会议的调查结果时,我们发现除了首选会议方法外(p=0.0225),人口统计学上没有差异。我们发现,通过视频会议与面对面会议相比,在整体体验、会议的有益性或会议的压力水平方面没有差异(p=0.9909;p=0.8420;p=0.2352)。然而,与通过视频会议会面的教员相比,面对面会议的人员对沟通效果的评价更高(p=0.0002),而在线会议的人员对便利性的评价更高(p<0.0001)。在控制首选会议方法(p<0.0001 和 p=0.0003)和急诊医学专业学生(p=.0423 和 p<0.0110)后,这两种影响仍然存在。
我们的研究结果表明,LCME 要求的 MCF 会议可以通过 Google Hangouts 等基于网络的程序成功进行,而不会影响整体会议体验。虽然会议的便利性得到了提高,但实习主任也应注意到视频会议在沟通效果方面的感知缺陷。