Search

Problem: The ability to document a patient encounter is integral for any physician. Previous studies indicate that medical students' note writing skills are poor due to a lack of formal clinical documentation instruction. Barriers to formally teaching students how to write patient notes include the significant time burden and variability in faculty feedback. Implementing a near-peer teaching program to teach students how to write a patient note can overcome these barriers and fill this curricular gap. Intervention: Fourth year medical students who completed a Teaching in Medicine elective course were trained to provide individual feedback to 1st and 2nd year students on note writing as a part of their Introduction to Clinical Medicine course. In order to determine the effect of this two year, near-peer feedback program on note writing skills, we analyzed students' scores on the note writing portion of two Objective Structured Clinical Exams that took place at the end of the 2nd and 3rd years of medical school. Context: The near-peer feedback sessions were implemented in the Fall of 2013 during the preclinical years of the medical school curriculum. Data from students who received near-peer feedback (N = 112) were compared to a historical control group who did not receive near-peer feedback on their note writing (N = 110). Objective Structured Clinical Exam scores that were specific to note writing skills, including the history, physical exam, and differential diagnosis subscales were examined. Impact: The near-peer feedback had a positive impact on the quality of patient notes. On the end of the 2nd year Objective Structured Clinical Exam, the near-peer feedback intervention group outperformed the no feedback group on the history and physical exam subscale scores but not on the differential diagnosis subscale score. One year later, the near-peer feedback intervention group continued to outperform the no feedback group on the physical exam subscale score, but not the history or the differential diagnosis subscale scores. Lessons Learned: Near-peer teaching improves student documentation of the history and physical exam, however only the effects on the physical exam portion persist into the clinical years of training. Writing up a differential diagnosis is a skill that develops through the clerkship experience regardless of exposure to feedback in the preclinical years. Implementing near-peer teaching in the medical school setting is feasible and can provide students with valuable learning experiences without relying on clinical faculty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Byline: Perrilynn Baldelli, RN, MS, CCRN, ANP-C (Stony Brook University Medical Center Hospital, Stony Brook, New York); Mary Paciella, RN, MS, CCRN, ANP-C, CNS (Stony Brook University Medical Center Hospital, [...]

Introduction: While prior literature demonstrates gender-based differences in surgical residents' self-assessments, limited data exist examining these effects at the medical student level. This study aimed to understand how self-ratings of clinical performance differ across genders for clerkship students., Methods: This was a retrospective study examining the results of an institutional Clinical Performance Examination administered at the end of the clerkship year. Students were tasked with obtaining a history and physical examination and developing an assessment and plan based on standardized patient cases. After the examination, students were asked to estimate the percentile rating of their performance. Female and male students' true scores, self-rated percentiles, and differences between true and self-rated percentiles were compared., Results: One hundred twenty three male and 113 female medical students were included in the analysis. Female medical students performed statistically significantly better overall (79.65% versus 78.23%, P = 0.0039), in history skills (76.90% versus 75.19%, P = 0.012), and in communication skills (94.05% versus 92.58%, P = 0.0085). No statistically significant differences were seen between self-rated percentiles between male and female students. However, when comparing the difference between self-rated and true percentile scores (Δ = self-rated - true percentile), male students were more likely to rate themselves higher than their true percentile on history (male students Δ = 12.26 versus female students Δ = -1.24, P = 0.00076) and communication metrics (male students Δ = 14.12 versus female students Δ = 6.05, P = 0.037)., Conclusions: Despite higher performance, female students rate themselves similarly to male medical students, suggesting a pattern of underestimation. Faculty must recognize that gender-based differences in self-evaluations begin at the medical student level, potentially impacting future trainee development., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)