Independent and mentored video review of OSCEs.

Summary: Background: Video review of OSCE (objective structured clinical examination) performance allows students to analyse their performance, identify actions and behaviours for correction or reinforcement, and develop a plan for improvement of clinical skills. Student perceptions of the utility of independent and mentored video review are unknown. Methods: We created a pilot programme of post‐OSCE structured video review. Students were randomised to mentored (M) or independent (I) review. In the mentored group, a faculty member facilitated the process. Both groups completed an assessment rubric and created an action plan. We examined student perceptions of the process, helpful elements of each type of review and perceived impact after a follow‐up OSCE. Results: The mentored group (n = 12) was more comfortable watching themselves than the independent group (n = 11); using a five‐point Likert scale, where 1 indicates 'strongly disagree' and 5 indicates 'strongly agree': 3.5 ± 1.2 (I) versus 4.5 ± 0.2 (M) (p = 0.02). The mentored group more strongly agreed that their clinical skills would improve: 3.6 ± 1.1 (I) versus 4.9 ± 0.2 (M) (p < 0.01). After the follow‐up OSCE, the mentored group (n = 10) tended to feel more strongly that their clinical skills had improved compared with the independent group (n = 9): 3.6 ± 1.3 (I) versus 4.3 ± 0.7 (M) (p = 0.14). Discussion: This pilot study demonstrates the utility of using a structured framework for post‐OSCE video review, both for the assessment of performance and for the development of a behavioural action plan. There are advantages to using a mentor‐guided model, but further study is needed to determine whether actual OSCE performances improve as a consequence. Video review of OSCE performance allows students to analyse their performance [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]