Cargando…

Physical examination skills training: Faculty staff vs. patient instructor feedback—A controlled trial

BACKGROUND: 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 importan...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Krautter, Markus, Diefenbacher, Katja, Schultz, Jobst-Hendrik, Maatouk, Imad, Herrmann-Werner, Anne, Koehl-Hackert, Nadja, Herzog, Wolfgang, Nikendei, Christoph
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5503248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28692703
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180308
_version_ 1783249062943784960
author Krautter, Markus
Diefenbacher, Katja
Schultz, Jobst-Hendrik
Maatouk, Imad
Herrmann-Werner, Anne
Koehl-Hackert, Nadja
Herzog, Wolfgang
Nikendei, Christoph
author_facet Krautter, Markus
Diefenbacher, Katja
Schultz, Jobst-Hendrik
Maatouk, Imad
Herrmann-Werner, Anne
Koehl-Hackert, Nadja
Herzog, Wolfgang
Nikendei, Christoph
author_sort Krautter, Markus
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5503248
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55032482017-07-25 Physical examination skills training: Faculty staff vs. patient instructor feedback—A controlled trial Krautter, Markus Diefenbacher, Katja Schultz, Jobst-Hendrik Maatouk, Imad Herrmann-Werner, Anne Koehl-Hackert, Nadja Herzog, Wolfgang Nikendei, Christoph PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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. Public Library of Science 2017-07-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5503248/ /pubmed/28692703 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180308 Text en © 2017 Krautter et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Krautter, Markus
Diefenbacher, Katja
Schultz, Jobst-Hendrik
Maatouk, Imad
Herrmann-Werner, Anne
Koehl-Hackert, Nadja
Herzog, Wolfgang
Nikendei, Christoph
Physical examination skills training: Faculty staff vs. patient instructor feedback—A controlled trial
title Physical examination skills training: Faculty staff vs. patient instructor feedback—A controlled trial
title_full Physical examination skills training: Faculty staff vs. patient instructor feedback—A controlled trial
title_fullStr Physical examination skills training: Faculty staff vs. patient instructor feedback—A controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Physical examination skills training: Faculty staff vs. patient instructor feedback—A controlled trial
title_short Physical examination skills training: Faculty staff vs. patient instructor feedback—A controlled trial
title_sort physical examination skills training: faculty staff vs. patient instructor feedback—a controlled trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5503248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28692703
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180308
work_keys_str_mv AT krauttermarkus physicalexaminationskillstrainingfacultystaffvspatientinstructorfeedbackacontrolledtrial
AT diefenbacherkatja physicalexaminationskillstrainingfacultystaffvspatientinstructorfeedbackacontrolledtrial
AT schultzjobsthendrik physicalexaminationskillstrainingfacultystaffvspatientinstructorfeedbackacontrolledtrial
AT maatoukimad physicalexaminationskillstrainingfacultystaffvspatientinstructorfeedbackacontrolledtrial
AT herrmannwerneranne physicalexaminationskillstrainingfacultystaffvspatientinstructorfeedbackacontrolledtrial
AT koehlhackertnadja physicalexaminationskillstrainingfacultystaffvspatientinstructorfeedbackacontrolledtrial
AT herzogwolfgang physicalexaminationskillstrainingfacultystaffvspatientinstructorfeedbackacontrolledtrial
AT nikendeichristoph physicalexaminationskillstrainingfacultystaffvspatientinstructorfeedbackacontrolledtrial