Search

IntroductionDirect observation of clinical skills is a key assessment strategy in competency-based medical education. The guidelines presented in this paper synthesize the literature on direct observation of clinical skills. The goal is to provide a practical list of Do's, Don'ts and Don't Knows about direct observation for supervisors who teach learners in the clinical setting and for educational leaders who are responsible for clinical training programs.MethodsWe built consensus through an iterative approach in which each author, based on their medical education and research knowledge and expertise, independently developed a list of Do's, Don'ts, and Don't Knows about direct observation of clinical skills. Lists were compiled, discussed and revised. We then sought and compiled evidence to support each guideline and determine the strength of each guideline.ResultsA final set of 33 Do's, Don'ts and Don't Knows is presented along with a summary of evidence for each guideline. Guidelines focus on two groups: individual supervisors and the educational leaders responsible for clinical training programs. Guidelines address recommendations for how to focus direct observation, select an assessment tool, promote high quality assessments, conduct rater training, and create a learning culture conducive to direct observation.ConclusionsHigh frequency, high quality direct observation of clinical skills can be challenging. These guidelines offer important evidence-based Do's and Don'ts that can help improve the frequency and quality of direct observation. Improving direct observation requires focus not just on individual supervisors and their learners, but also on the organizations and cultures in which they work and train. Additional research to address the Don't Knows can help educators realize the full potential of direct observation in competency-based education.

Background Although entrustment-supervision ratings are more intuitive compared to other rating scales, it is not known whether their use accurately assesses the appropriateness of care provided by a resident. Objective To determine the frequency of incorrect entrustment ratings assigned by faculty and whether accuracy of an entrustment-supervision scale differed by resident performance when the scripted resident performance level is known. Methods Faculty participants rated standardized residents in 10 videos using a 4-point entrustment-supervision scale. We calculated the frequency of rating a resident incorrectly. We performed generalizability (G) and decision (D) studies for all 10 cases (768 ratings) and repeated the analysis using only cases with an entrustment score of 2. Results The mean score by 77 raters for all videos was 2.87 (SD=0.86) with a mean of 2.37 (SD=0.72), 3.11 (SD=0.67) and 3.78 (SD=0.43) for the scripted levels of 2, 3, and 4. Faculty ratings differed from the scripted score for 331of 768 (43%) ratings. Most errors were ratings higher than the scripted score (223, 67%). G studies estimated the variance proportions of rater and case to be 4.99% and 54.29%. D studies estimated that 3 raters would need to watch 10 cases. The variance proportion of rater was 8.5% when the analysis was restricted to level 2 entrustment, requiring 15 raters to watch 5 cases. Conclusions Participants underestimated residents' potential need for greater supervision. Overall agreement between raters and scripted scores were low. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In his timely and important article, A Review of Published Guidance for Video Recording in Medical Education, Dr. Butler lays out a series of concerns and controversies regarding the use [...]

Course evaluation is integral to medical education. We discuss (1) distinctive features of medical education that impact on course evaluation, (2) a framework for course evaluations, (3) details that shape the evaluation process, (4) key measurement issues important to data gathering and interpretation, and (5) opportunities for expanding the scope of research regarding course evaluations. Drawing from higher education and medical education literature, a great deal is known about course evaluations. High-quality rating scales have been developed. There is evidence that ratings are valid and reproducible given sufficient ratings are gathered, but there remain many areas deserving of more research.