Our workshop produced a modest gain in student knowledge on neonatal resuscitation at the end of their medical course. The students' overall gain in knowledge was below our expectation, and evaluation appeared to be their weakest domain. Further research should evaluate strategies to enhance longer-term knowledge retention with practical performance.

Background The Objective Structured Clinical Exam (OSCE) is a useful means of generating meaningful feedback. OSCE feedback may be in various forms (written, face to face and audio or video recordings). Studies on OSCE feedback are uncommon, especially involving Asian medical students. Methods We compared two methods of OSCE feedback delivered to fourth year medical students in Malaysia: (i) Face to face (FTF) immediate feedback (semester one) (ii) Individualised enhanced written (EW) feedback containing detailed scores in each domain, examiners’ free text comments and the marking rubric (semester two). Both methods were evaluated by students and staff examiners, and students’ responses were compared against their OSCE performance. Results Of the 116 students who sat for both formative OSCEs, 82.8% (n=96) and 86.2% (n=100) responded to the first and second survey respectively. Most students were comfortable to receive feedback (91.3% in FTF, 96% in EW) with EW feedback associated with higher comfort levels (p=0.022). Distress affected a small number with no differences between either method (13.5% in FTF, 10% in EW, p=0.316). Most students perceived both types of feedback improved their performance (89.6% in FTF, 95% in EW); this perception was significantly stronger for EW feedback (p=0.008). Students who preferred EW feedback had lower OSCE scores compared to those preferring FTF feedback (mean scores ± SD: 43.8 ± 5.3 in EW, 47.2 ± 6.5 in FTF, p=0.049). Students ranked the “marking rubric” to be the most valuable aspect of the EW feedback. Tutors felt both methods of feedback were equally beneficial. Few examiners felt they needed training (21.4% in FTF, 15% in EW) but students perceived this need for tutors’ training differently (53.1% in FTF, 46% in EW) Conclusion Whilst both methods of OSCE feedback were highly valued, students preferred to receive EW feedback and felt it was more beneficial. Learning cultures of Malaysian students may have influenced this view. Information provided in EW feedback should be tailored accordingly to provide meaningful feedback in OSCE exams.

IntroductionClinical education has moved to a ‘competency-based’ model with an emphasis on workplace-based learning and assessment which, in turn, depends on feedback to be effective. Further, the understanding of feedback has changed from information about a performance directed to the learner performing the task, to a dialogue, which enables the learner to act and develop.In health professional education, feedback is a complex interaction between trainee, supervisor and the healthcare system. Most published research on feedback in health professional education originates in Europe and North America. Our interest is on the impact of Culture on this process, particularly in the context of Asian cultures.The (scientific) realist approach of Pawson and Tilley provides a means to examine complex interventions in social situations, and thus is an appropriate lens to use for this study. This is a protocol for a realist synthesis which asks how, why and in what circumstances do Asian Cultures influence health professional trainees to seek, respond to and use feedback given in the clinical environment, if at all.Methods and analysisAn initial search was performed to help define the scope of the review question and develop our initial programme theory. The formal electronic search was carried out in February 2020 and included: CINAHL, ERIC, Medline and PsycInfo, and repeated in October 2020. Retrieved articles were imported into Covidence for screening and data extraction, after which components of the Context–Mechanisms–Outcomes configurations will be sought to refine the initial programme theory.Ethics and disseminationAs this study is a literature review, ethics approval is not required.The findings will be documented in line with the RAMESES (Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) publications standards for Realist syntheses, and we plan to disseminate the findings by means of a peer-reviewed journal article and conference presentation(s).