Search

OBJECTIVES This study examined the construct validity of three commonly used clerkship performance assessments, including preceptors' evaluations, objective structured clinical examination (OSCE)-type clinical performance measures, and the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) medicine subject examination, in order to better understand their conceptual structures and utility in the explanation of clinical competence. METHODS A total of 686 students who took an in-patient medicine clerkship during the period 2003 to 2007 participated in the study. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses using structural equation modelling were adopted to examine the latent domains underlying various indicators assessed by these three measures and the pattern of indicator-domain relationships. RESULTS Factor analyses found three latent constructs, labelled Clinical Performance, Interpersonal Skills and Clinical Knowledge, underlying the observed measures. The three domains were modestly correlated with one another (inter-factor correlation coefficients ranged from 0.39 to 0.54). They also tapped a common higher-order construct, Clinical Competence, in varying degrees of magnitude (0.73, 0.74, 0.53, respectively). CONCLUSIONS The study demonstrated that although the three commonly used tools for assessing clerkship performance contributed uniquely to the understanding of clinical performance, they also attested to a shared domain of clinical competence in their assessment. The study confirmed the need for a multiple-methods approach to clinical performance assessment. Findings also revealed that clerkship preceptors need to differentiate their evaluation of students' performances, and that the OSCE did not assess a single domain of clinical competence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context The finding of case or content specificity in medical problem solving moved the focus of research away from generalisable skills towards the importance of content knowledge. However, controversy about the content dependency of clinical performance and the generalisability of skills remains. Objectives This study aimed to explore the relative impact of both perspectives (case specificity and generalisable skills) on different components (history taking, physical examination, communication) of clinical performance within and across cases. Methods Data from a clinical performance examination (CPX) taken by 350 Year 3 students were used in a correlated traits−correlated methods (CTCM) approach using confirmatory factor analysis, whereby ‘traits’ refers to generalisable skills and ‘methods’ to individual cases. The baseline CTCM model was analysed and compared with four nested models using structural equation modelling techniques. The CPX consisted of three skills components and five cases. Results Comparison of the four different models with the least-restricted baseline CTCM model revealed that a model with uncorrelated generalisable skills factors and correlated case-specific knowledge factors represented the data best. The generalisable processes found in history taking, physical examination and communication were responsible for half the explained variance, in comparison with the variance related to case specificity. Conclusions Pure knowledge-based and pure skill-based perspectives on clinical performance both seem too one-dimensional and new evidence supports the idea that a substantial amount of variance contributes to both aspects of performance. It could be concluded that generalisable skills and specialised knowledge go hand in hand: both are essential aspects of clinical performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Clerkship experiences are considered crucial for the development of clinical competence. Yet whether there is a direct relationship between the nature and volume of patient encounters and learning outcomes is far from clear. Some evidence in the literature points towards the importance of clinical supervision on student learning, but the relationship between clinical supervision, patient encounters and student competence remains unclear. Objectives This study aimed firstly to determine the variation in students' clinical experiences within and across sites; secondly, to identify the causes of this variation, and thirdly, to investigate the consequences of this variation on students' competence. Methods Clerkship students at 12 hospital sites recorded their patient encounters in logbooks. Site characteristics that might influence the variation in patient encounters were collected. Student competence was determined by 3 independent indicators: a practical end-of-clerkship examination; a theoretical end-of-clerkship examination, and an evaluation of professional performance. A model was developed to test the available clerkship data using structural equation modelling (SEM) software. Results Analysis of the logbooks revealed a large variation in the number of patients encountered by students. The average length of patient stay, number of patients admitted, and quality of supervision accounted partly for this variation. An increased number of patient encounters did not directly lead to improved competence. Quality of supervision turned out to be crucially important because it directly impacted student learning and also positively influenced the number of patient encounters. Conclusion Monitoring the effectiveness of clerkship by merely asking students to keep a tally of the problems and diseases they encounter, without paying attention to the quality of supervision, does not contribute towards improving student learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background This study was directed at illuminating a well known phenomenon in the medical expertise literature, the ‘intermediate effect’ in clinical case recall. This robust phenomenon consists of the finding that medical students of intermediate levels of expertise outperform both experts and novices in clinical case recall after diagnosing cases. It deals in particular with the findings of OME researchers who have reported a monotonically increasing recall with level of expertise. Purpose To address possible causes for this anomaly in medical expertise and to experimentally demonstrate how data elaboration can cause expertise effects in clinical case recall. Method Expert nephrologists, intermediate level students and novices were presented with 6 medical cases under 3 different conditions: laboratory data cases without special instructions, laboratory data cases with instructions to elaborate, and cases with laboratory data and a relevant clinical context. Results Only when participants were required to elaborate on each of the information units presented to them did case recall show an expertise effect. If laboratory data are framed within the context of a patient's history and physical examination data, the ‘intermediate effect’ appears. Conclusions The instructions used in the elaboration condition seem to have induced a deeper, more detailed, analysis of the patient case. It is therefore interesting to note that these instructions only affected the recall of the experts and had no effect on the novices' or intermediates' recall. We might conclude from this that expertise effects in clinical case recall are only produced when the normal processing of patient information is disrupted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The logistical necessity of students taking required clinical clerkship rotations in non-uniform sequences may have significant consequences on performance. Aims: To investigate (1) the impact of previous clinical clerkship experience and the national licensing examination (USMLE Step 1) rankings on end-of-clerkship overall skills assessments and (2) the effect of clinical clerkship order on end-of-year objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) performance. Method: The core clinical phase of UCLA consists at six clinical clerkships during a 48-week continuum. The clerkships are structured in two different tracks with different rotation order. Clinical performance scores were analyzed for 124 year-3 students in the two different tracks. Results: Performance, as reviewed on a standardized clinical clerkship evaluation form by faculty and residents, improved significantly across the clinical year, regardless of track suggesting an accumulated advantage of previous experiences. There were no significant differences between tracks on the OSCE. Conclusions: Overall clinical skills are more directly impacted by the time-of-year and not order whereas knowledge of specific specialties may be impacted by the order rotations that are taken. While this may not be obvious to students, perhaps we should share these results for their use in tracking their personal growth in clinical skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: National statistics reveal that efforts to reduce medical student mistreatment have been largely ineffective. Some hypothesize that as supervisors gain skills in professionalism, medical students become more sensitive. Aims: The purpose of this study was to determine if medical student perceptions of mistreatment are correlated with mistreatment sensitivity. Method: At the end of their third year, 175 medical students completed an Abuse Sensitivity Questionnaire, focused on student assessment of hypothetical scenarios which might be perceived as abusive, and the annual Well-Being Survey, which includes measurement of incident rates of mistreatment. It was hypothesized that those students who identified the scenarios as abusive would also be more likely to perceive that they had been mistreated. Results: Student perceptions of mistreatment were not statistically correlated with individual's responses to the scenarios or to a statistically derived abuse sensitivity variable. There were no differences in abuse sensitivity by student age or ethnicity. Women were more likely than men to consider it 'harsh' to be called incompetent during rounds ( p < 0.0005). Conclusion: This study provides preliminary evidence that challenges the hypothesis that medical students who perceive mistreatment by their superiors are simply more sensitive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the ethnic and racial diversity of student bodies in medical schools, examining whether such diversity prepares graduating physicians to treat a diverse society. Topics include attitudes concerning access to care, an intent to practice medicine in areas underserved by doctors, and discriminatory admission practices by medical schools. Also discussed are the attitudes of white medical students in the highest diversity quintile, racial disparities in health care quality, and the educational benefits of a racially diverse medical school.

A series of three annual surveys of David Geffen School of Medicine (DGSOM) at UCLA students and UCR/UCLA Thomas Haider Program in Biomedical Sciences students were administered from 2010 to 2012 to ascertain student perceptions of which anatomy pedagogy--prosection or dissection--was most valuable to them during the first year of preclinical medical education and for the entire medical school experience in general. Students were asked, "What value does gross anatomy education have in preclinical medical education?" We further asked the students who participated in both prosection and dissection pedagogies, "Would you have preferred an anatomy curriculum like the Summer Anatomy Dissection during your first year in medical school instead of prosection?" All students who responded to the survey viewed anatomy as a highly valued part of the medical curriculum, specifically referring to four major themes: Anatomy is (1) the basis for medical understanding, (2) part of the overall medical school experience, (3) a bridge to understanding pathology and physiology, and (4) the foundation for clinical skills. Students who participated in both prosection and dissection pedagogies surprisingly and overwhelmingly advocated for a prosection curriculum for the first year of medical school, not a dissection curriculum. Time efficiency was the dominant theme in survey responses from students who learned anatomy through prosection and then dissection. Students, regardless of whether interested in surgery/radiology or not, appreciated both pedagogies but commented that prosection was sufficient for learning basic anatomy, while dissection was a necessary experience in preparation for the anatomical medical specialties. This suggests that anatomy instruction should be integrated into the clinical years of medical education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We describe student beliefs of how anatomy education influenced their preparation for standardized clinical assessments and clinical skills. We conducted three annual surveys of students of the David Geffen School of Medicine (DGSOM) at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and students of the University of California, Riverside (UCR)/UCLA Thomas Haider Program in Biomedical Sciences from 2010 to 2012. Students were asked, "What specific knowledge or skills did you learn from your gross anatomy experience that helped you prepare for USMLE board exams, third-year clerkships, and physical examination skills?" All students who responded to the survey viewed anatomy as a highly valued part of the medical curriculum. Almost all students felt that anatomy knowledge in general was useful for their success with United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) exams, how they perceived their physical exam skills, and how they perceived their preparation for third- or fourth-year clerkships. On the other hand, when asked about how the anatomy curriculum helped prepare students for fourth-year clerkships, there was a downward trend over a three-year period with each subsequent class. Although anatomy is a highly valued part of the medical school experience, students value integration of the anatomical and clinical sciences, as evidenced by a perceived diminishing value of anatomy pedagogy taught outside of clinical context with subsequent classes over the course of three years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As students at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, the student authors were given the opportunity to develop their own creative projects which would be used to teach future medical students. They chose their own topics, planned and researched their projects, and then implemented the projects in interactive digital Adobe Flash files. In the first project they created interactive case-based radiology teaching files. In the second project they integrated photographic images into the existing illustrative anatomy files. Students in subsequent years have learned from these files on computers both at home and in the school's anatomy lab. The experience of creating the files served as an opportunity for hands-on learning for the student authors, both of the material and of the practice of teaching. In this paper they describe why they undertook these projects, what exactly they did, and the impact their creation had on them. The projects demonstrate that student-driven educational materials are both possible and beneficial. Furthermore, their experience has allowed them to conclude that faculty at other medical schools should consider providing students with opportunities to develop their own creative projects that contribute to the curriculum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]