ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To improve 4 skills (communication, history-taking, past history-taking, and documentation) in medical students, we designed and pilot-tested a curriculum to teach a sample of Year 4 (Y4) students these skills and compared the clinical performance of these students with students not receiving the intervention. METHODS: The study focused on the new curriculum's effectiveness in enhancing students' performance of these skills. To minimize exposure across groups, participants were divided into intervention and control groups at random and placed in various classrooms. We evaluated each group's clinical competency 3 times: prior to the intervention, 9 weeks afterward, and 2 years later. RESULTS: There was no difference at baseline between the 2 groups. Immediately following the intervention, the mean score of the intervention group's skills was significantly higher than before and higher than the control group in each clinical skill. The performance difference between the 2 groups was maintained for 2 years following the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Following a 9-week curriculum, evaluators rated students' performance higher than their counterparts who learned these skills through standard informal exposure in the clinical setting. The fact that this performance advantage was maintained for 2 years following the intervention is a testament to the durability of the intervention and the value of dedicated training in these critical areas at an early point in students' clinical careers.
