Background: Performance feedback is considered essential to clinical skills development. Formative objective structured clinical exams (F-OSCEs) often include immediate feedback by standardized patients. Students can also be provided access to performance metrics including scores, checklists, and video recordings after the F-OSCE to supplement this feedback. How often students choose to review this data and how review impacts future performance has not been documented.Objective: We suspect student review of F-OSCE performance data is variable. We hypothesize that students who review this data have better performance on subsequent F-OSCEs compared to those who do not. We also suspect that frequency of data review can be improved with faculty involvement in the form of student-faculty debriefing meetings.Design: Simulation recording software tracks and time stamps student review of performance data. We investigated a cohort of first- and second-year medical students from the 2015-16 academic year. Basic descriptive statistics were used to characterize frequency of data review and a linear mixed-model analysis was used to determine relationships between data review and future F-OSCE performance.Results: Students reviewed scores (64%), checklists (42%), and videos (28%) in decreasing frequency. Frequency of review of all metric and modalities improved when student-faculty debriefing meetings were conducted (p<.001). Among 92 first-year students, checklist review was associated with an improved performance on subsequent F-OSCEs (p = 0.038) by 1.07 percentage points on a scale of 0-100. Among 86 second year students, no review modality was associated with improved performance on subsequent F-OSCEs.Conclusion: Medical students review F-OSCE checklists and video recordings less than 50% of the time when not prompted. Student-faculty debriefing meetings increased student data reviews. First-year student’s review of checklists on F-OSCEs was associated with increases in performance on subsequent F-OSCEs, however this outcome was not observed among second-year students.
Background Emergency department personnel routinely bear witness to traumatic experiences and critical incidents that can affect their own well-being. Peer support through debriefing has demonstrated positive impacts on clinicians’ well-being following critical incidents. This study explored community hospital emergency department staff’s perceptions of critical incidents, assessed openness to debriefing and measured baseline well-being. Our analysis provides a baseline of provider well-being immediately prior to the local onset of COVID-19. The potential need for additional resources to support frontline providers during the pandemic can be evaluated. Method We conducted a cross-sectional study for 4-weeks prior to the first COVID-19 case in Connecticut using a survey offered to an interprofessional group of emergency department clinical staff. The main outcome measures were the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL) scale. Pearson’s chi-square test was used to identify significant differences in perceptions of critical incidents and debriefings between professional categories. One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test were used to analyze significant differences in well-being between professional categories. Results Thirty-nine clinical personnel from St. Vincent’s Emergency Department responded to the survey. Events frequently selected as critical incidents were caring for critically ill children (89.7%), mass casualty events (84.6%), and death of a patient (69.2%). Critical incidents were commonly reported (81.6%) as occurring once per week. Additionally, 76.2% of participants reported wanting to discuss a critical incident with their team. Across all respondents, 45.7% scored borderline or abnormal for anxiety, 55.9% scored moderate for burnout, and 55.8% scored moderate to high for secondary traumatic stress. Conclusions At baseline, providers reported caring for critically ill children, mass casualty events, and death of a patient as critical incidents, which typically occurred once per week. Death of a patient occurs at increased frequency during the protracted mass casualty experience of COVID-19 and threatens provider well-being. Receptiveness to post-event debriefing is high but the method is still underutilized. With nearly half of staff scoring borderline or abnormal for anxiety, burnout, and secondary traumatic stress at baseline, peer support measures should be implemented to protect frontline providers’ well-being during and after the pandemic.
Background and objectives Human trafficking is a significant problem in which healthcare workers are in a unique position to intervene. This study sought to determine the self-reported knowledge levels of healthcare providers most likely to come in direct contact with victims of human trafficking. Methods An anonymous survey assessing self-reported knowledge of human trafficking was developed and distributed online. Demographic information and questions pertaining to training and knowledge of trafficking in a healthcare setting were asked. The primary outcomes were descriptive statistics and secondary outcomes were comparisons among demographic groups. Qualitative methodology via content analysis was implemented on an open-ended question. Results The 6,603 respondents represented all regions of the country. Medical, nursing, and physician assistant students comprised 23% of the sample, while 40% were either physicians, fellows, or residents. Less than half the respondents (42%) have received formal training in human trafficking, while an overwhelming majority (93%) believe they would benefit by such training. Overall, respondents thought their level of knowledge of trafficking was average to below average (mean = 2.64 on a 5-point scale). There were significant differences in knowledge of trafficking by age group (p < .001), region (p < .001), and educational training level (p < .001). 949 respondents (14.4%) provided free-text comments that further described their opinions. Conclusion Most respondents stated they have not received training but felt they would benefit from it. There were significant differences between demographic groups. Further innovation is needed to design a universally appropriate curriculum on human trafficking that is accessible to all healthcare providers as well as mandatory training programs for healthcare institutions.
The experience of psychological trauma is common and has become even more prevalent during the COVID-19 pandemic for both health care workers and the general population [ 1–3 ]. Traumatic experiences can have varied and lasting physical and mental health effects on patients, beyond what we are privy to in the acute environment of the emergency department. The effects of these prior traumatic experiences can be exacerbated by interaction with the healthcare system, and yet emergency medicine physicians have no standardized methods for working with patients in a trauma-informed way. The systematic implementation of trauma-informed care (TIC) practice requires the cooperation of multiple domains within the health care system, including focus on the physical environment, direct care, and administrative practices. Here we provide recommendations specific to emergency medicine for the development and implementation of TIC in the regular patient-clinician interaction, situated within the context of the TIC framework as outlined by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) [ 4 ].
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.