Objective structured clinical examination compared with other forms of student assessment.

Smith, Lawrence J.; Price, D A; Houston, I. B.

doi:10.1136/adc.59.12.1173

Cited by 43 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The method has the advantage that skills are assessed using a predefined marking system in a "checklist" (31), helping the observer to pay attention to every single detail. However, final validation of the OSA requires further study in a different population.…”

Section: Patient Knowledge Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using a Multidisciplinary Training Program to Reduce Peritonitis in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

♦ObjectivesThe present study evaluated the tool used to assess patients’ skills and the impact on peritonitis rates of a new multidisciplinary peritoneal dialysis (PD) education program (PDEP).♦MethodsAfter the University Hospital Ethics Committee approved the study, the educational and clinical records of PD patients were retrospectively analyzed in two phases. In phase I, an Objective Structured Assessment (OSA) was used during August 2008 to evaluate the practical skills of 25 patients with adequate Kt/V and no mental disabilities who had been on PD for more than 1 month. Test results were correlated with the prior year's peritonitis rate. In phase II, the new PDEP, consisting of individual lessons, a retraining schedule, and group meetings, was introduced starting 1 September 2008. Age, sex, years of education, time on PD, number of training sessions, and peritonitis episodes were recorded. Statistical analyses used t-tests, chi-square tests, and Poisson distributions; a p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.♦ResultsIn phase I, 25 patients [16 men, 9 women; mean age: 54 ± 15 years (range: 22 – 84 years); mean time on PD: 35 ± 30 months (range: 1 – 107 months)] were studied. The OSA results correlated with peritonitis rates: patients who passed the test had experienced significantly lower peritonitis rates during the prior year ( p < 0.05). In phase II, after the new PDEP was introduced, overall peritonitis rates significantly declined (to 0.28 episodes/patient–year from 0.55 episodes/patient–year, p < 0.05); the Staphylococcus peritonitis rate also declined (to 0.09 episodes/patient–year from 0.24 episodes/patient–year, p < 0.05).♦ConclusionsThe OSA is a reliable tool for assessing patients’ skills, and it correlates with peritonitis rates. The multidisciplinary PDEP significantly improved outcomes by further lowering peritonitis rates.

show abstract

Section: Patient Knowledge Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using a Multidisciplinary Training Program to Reduce Peritonitis in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…15 Three centers in the United Kingdom developed OSCEs in pediatrics for medical students in the early 1980s. [16][17][18] However, it was not until this decade that pediatric OSCEs (with the short-station format and use of some SPs) were used to evaluate the clinical skills of residents. [19][20][21][22] There is a need to further investigate the SP methods for use in pediatric training.…”

Section: Resident Pcsa Performance Profilementioning

confidence: 99%

A Pediatric Clinical Skills Assessment Using Children as Standardized Patients

Lane

Ziv²,

Boulet³

1999

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Students' scores were found to correlate with the conventional clinical examination [2]. This finding poses yet another question: why use a new examination tool if we are to achieve the same result?…”

mentioning

confidence: 64%

Objective Structural Clinical Examination

El-Gamri

1992

Ann Saudi Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

EM ElGamri, Objective Structural Clinical Examination. 1992; 12(2): 223-224 To the Editor: We have had experience with the use of the objective standard clinical examination (OSCE) for assessment of medical students at various levels in the Faculty of Medicine, University of Gezira in Sudan. I would like to reflect my personal view on its use based on this experience.The main rationale for introducing a new examination tool was an attempt to overcome the many disadvantages of the conventional oral and clinical examination, mainly the lack of standardization of examiner, patient [1] and questions asked.We have used a 20 to 30 station test for a number of students averaging 40. The material included patients, photographs, x-rays, pathological samples and electrocardiograms (ECGs), etc. The test was found to be acceptable and enjoyable for medical students and teachers.The test is useful in the immediate assessment of the students' interactions with the patient. However, history taking skills, in my opinion, cannot be adequately assessed in the limited time available in the OSCE or by the use of a checklist.The objectivity claimed by enthusiasts is not always easy to achieve. The checklist divides a particular clinical skill into its components. For example, if a candidate omits the examinations of the jugular venous pulse (JVP) his score will be zero. The candidate will obtain a score from one to three depending on whether the candidate has performed the manuever poorly, moderately well, or very well, which is of course still subjective.Standardization is not helped by having to change patients in a particular station when examining a relatively large number of students. History and physical signs, are of course, more easily elicited in some patients than others. Attempts to obtain patients with similar signs will not eliminate this constraint.The main question remains: how much weight in the overall assessment of the students are medical educators prepared to give to this innovative examination tool? In our setting, OSCE has contributed approximately 15% to the total mark in any given subject. This is a modest figure given the cost of the examination in terms of financial, human and time resources.Proponants' answers to this question range between describing the test as an "acceptable alternative" [2] and an "integral component" [3] to the overall clinical assessment. Students' scores were found to correlate with the conventional clinical examination [2]. This finding poses yet another question: why use a new examination tool if we are to achieve the same result?For all of its advantages, I do not see OSCE replacing clinical and oral examination. ElRadi Mohammed ElGamri, MBBS, DTM&H, MRCP

show abstract

Objective structured clinical examination compared with other forms of student assessment.

Cited by 43 publications

References 3 publications

Using a Multidisciplinary Training Program to Reduce Peritonitis in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients

Using a Multidisciplinary Training Program to Reduce Peritonitis in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients

A Pediatric Clinical Skills Assessment Using Children as Standardized Patients

Objective Structural Clinical Examination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About