ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Simulation-based surgical skills workshops are commonly used in the surgical training programs to enhance the knowledge and psychomotor skills of the residents, but there is scarcity of objective data on their effectiveness. The aim of our study was to explore if a 1-day laparoscopic skills workshop enhanced the knowledge and skills of surgical residents in minimal access surgery and if it had any correlation with the Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) scores. METHODS: This was a quasi-experimental, single-arm, repeat measure, prospective cohort study design. Thirty-three residents from general surgery and obstetrics/gynecology programs of Aga Khan University participated in the study. A daylong laparoscopic skills workshop consisting of lectures, videos, and hands-on practice was offered. The pre-workshop knowledge and skills scores of residents were assessed and compared with immediate post-workshop scores and scores of repeat assessment at 2 months. The scores of DOPS on laparoscopic procedures before and after the workshop were also compared. RESULTS: The results of our study indicated that mean post-workshop (p < 0.001) and interval scores (p < 0.001) for both cognitive and psychomotor skills were significantly higher compared with mean pre-workshop scores. Similarly, post-workshop DOPS scores were significantly higher (p < 0.011) compared with pre-workshop DOPS scores. CONCLUSIONS: One-day laparoscopic skills workshop resulted in significant improvement in knowledge and psychomotor skills of the surgical residents. The skills gained from the workshop also resulted in improvement of DOPS scores reflecting the transfer of skills to real-life performance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT03982927.
ABSTRACT
Background: Medical colleges invest considerable effort in developing assessment programs to effectively evaluate students across attributes of knowledge, skills, and behavior. While assessment by direct observation is designed to be objective, "soft characteristics" such as personality, demeanor of student, and assessor may make assessment more subjective. The effect of such attributes in medical education remains unclear and needs exploration. The objective of this study was to explore non-cognitive traits of assessor and learner to understand their roles in student assessment. Methods: A mixed-method study was conducted during March to June 2015. All clinical faculty members at the Aga Khan University were invited to participate in this study. A questionnaire was designed and completed by the study participants. Two focus group discussions (FGDs) with faculty members explored teacher and learner traits influencing student assessment. A documentary analysis of the yearly student feedback report with a focus on the section on assessment was also utilized. Data triangulation was achieved by combining three sets of data. Results: Fifty-four (28%) clinical faculty members completed the questionnaire and 11 participated in the FGDs. About 68% reported rating students leniently. More than 50% reported their personality as a factor influencing assessment and 76% reported student appearance influencing assessment. The documentary analysis identified faculty personality and rating styles as key issues affecting the validity of student assessment during ongoing observation. In the FGDs, traits such as eagerness, intuition in students, and body language were reported to influence faculty members during the assessment. Discussion: Softer attributes of trainer and trainee increase the subjectivity of student assessment. Ongoing faculty training and rater feedback are required for a robust and objective assessment.
Subject(s)
Education, Medical , Faculty, Medical , Personality , Adult , Clinical Competence , Female , Focus Groups , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pakistan , Students, Medical , UniversitiesABSTRACT
Background. Family Medicine Residency Program at the Aga Khan University has applicants for the residency position in excess of the positions offered resulting in formulation of certain selection criteria. The objective of this study was to compare MMI versus semistructured interviews for assessing noncognitive domains in the selection of residents. The secondary objectives were to determine perceptions of the interviewers and candidates for the acceptability and feasibility of MMI as a selection tool. Methods. The candidates underwent semistructured interviews along with MMI and identical attributes were tested in both. The attributes tested were safe doctor, communication skills, professionalism, problem solving, team approach, ethical issues, reasons for selecting family medicine, and commitment to the program. Descriptive statistics were calculated and comparison between ratings for MMI and interview was performed by Wilcoxon sign rank test. Results. Total number of candidates was 14. On comparison between interview and MMI, the scores were not statistically different for all attributes except ethics (mean interview scores: 3.04, mean MMI scores: 2.5, and P value 0.046). Conclusion. The study showed no difference between MMI and semistructured interviews. However, it needs to be replicated in order to determine the predictive validity and feasibility of MMI over time.
ABSTRACT
Recent changes in curricula around the globe with emphasis on teaching/learning and assessing professionalism in medical schools has been the priority. With the changing public expectations and professional demands, it has become imperative to develop clear guidelines and policies for students and faculty to better understand and meet the expectations of them as part of professionalism. In order to analyse this problem and highlight potential solutions, a literature search was conducted using Eric, Medline, Google Scholar and CINAHL Plus databases from 1985 to February 2013. We reviewed publications regarding the relationship between the pharmaceutical and device industry and medical education which is one of the most debated and divisive ethical issues. We also analysed the tenets of professionalism, including integrity, primary responsibility to our patients, self-regulation, and societal responsibility, as they provide the framework to make decisions that meet our standards and support the public and patient's faith and trust in us. We propose that every lecture to medical students must include a standardised disclosure. Role modelling, on-going education, and creating policies that eliminate, instead of simply mitigating the negative consequences of faculty's conflicts of interest, are specific interventions on which we will need to focus to prevent harm to future physicians, and most importantly, to patients.
