Cargando…
Implementation of written structured feedback into a surgical OSCE
BACKGROUND: Feedback is an essential element of learning. Despite this, students complain about receiving too little feedback in medical examinations, e.g., in an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). This study aims to implement a written structured feedback tool for use in OSCEs and to...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8022414/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33823844 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02581-3 |
_version_ | 1783674922462085120 |
---|---|
author | Sterz, J. Linßen, S. Stefanescu, M. C. Schreckenbach, T. Seifert, L. B. Ruesseler, M. |
author_facet | Sterz, J. Linßen, S. Stefanescu, M. C. Schreckenbach, T. Seifert, L. B. Ruesseler, M. |
author_sort | Sterz, J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Feedback is an essential element of learning. Despite this, students complain about receiving too little feedback in medical examinations, e.g., in an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). This study aims to implement a written structured feedback tool for use in OSCEs and to analyse the attitudes of students and examiners towards this kind of feedback. METHODS: The participants were OSCE examiners and third-year medical students. This prospective study was conducted using a multistage design. In the first step, an unstructured interrogation of the examiners formed the basis for developing a feedback tool, which was evaluated and then adopted in the next steps. RESULTS: In total, 351 students and 51 examiners participated in this study. A baseline was created for each category of OSCE station and was supplemented with station-specific items. Each of these items was rated on a three-point scale. In addition to the preformulated answer options, each domain had space for individual comments. A total of 87.5% of the students and 91.6% of the examiners agreed or rather agreed that written feedback should continue to be used in upcoming OSCEs. CONCLUSION: The implementation of structured, written feedback in a curricular, summative examination is possible, and examiners and students would like the feedback to be constant. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8022414 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80224142021-04-07 Implementation of written structured feedback into a surgical OSCE Sterz, J. Linßen, S. Stefanescu, M. C. Schreckenbach, T. Seifert, L. B. Ruesseler, M. BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: Feedback is an essential element of learning. Despite this, students complain about receiving too little feedback in medical examinations, e.g., in an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). This study aims to implement a written structured feedback tool for use in OSCEs and to analyse the attitudes of students and examiners towards this kind of feedback. METHODS: The participants were OSCE examiners and third-year medical students. This prospective study was conducted using a multistage design. In the first step, an unstructured interrogation of the examiners formed the basis for developing a feedback tool, which was evaluated and then adopted in the next steps. RESULTS: In total, 351 students and 51 examiners participated in this study. A baseline was created for each category of OSCE station and was supplemented with station-specific items. Each of these items was rated on a three-point scale. In addition to the preformulated answer options, each domain had space for individual comments. A total of 87.5% of the students and 91.6% of the examiners agreed or rather agreed that written feedback should continue to be used in upcoming OSCEs. CONCLUSION: The implementation of structured, written feedback in a curricular, summative examination is possible, and examiners and students would like the feedback to be constant. BioMed Central 2021-04-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8022414/ /pubmed/33823844 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02581-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Sterz, J. Linßen, S. Stefanescu, M. C. Schreckenbach, T. Seifert, L. B. Ruesseler, M. Implementation of written structured feedback into a surgical OSCE |
title | Implementation of written structured feedback into a surgical OSCE |
title_full | Implementation of written structured feedback into a surgical OSCE |
title_fullStr | Implementation of written structured feedback into a surgical OSCE |
title_full_unstemmed | Implementation of written structured feedback into a surgical OSCE |
title_short | Implementation of written structured feedback into a surgical OSCE |
title_sort | implementation of written structured feedback into a surgical osce |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8022414/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33823844 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02581-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sterzj implementationofwrittenstructuredfeedbackintoasurgicalosce AT linßens implementationofwrittenstructuredfeedbackintoasurgicalosce AT stefanescumc implementationofwrittenstructuredfeedbackintoasurgicalosce AT schreckenbacht implementationofwrittenstructuredfeedbackintoasurgicalosce AT seifertlb implementationofwrittenstructuredfeedbackintoasurgicalosce AT ruesselerm implementationofwrittenstructuredfeedbackintoasurgicalosce |