Design and usability testing of an in-house developed performance feedback tool for medical students.

BACKGROUND: Feedback is essential in a self-regulated learning environment such as medical education. When feedback channels are widely spread, the need arises for a system of integrating this information in a single platform. This article reports on the design and initial testing of a feedback tool for medical students at Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, a large teaching hospital. Following a needs analysis, we designed and programmed a feedback tool in a user-centered approach. The resulting interface was evaluated prior to release with usability testing and again post release using quantitative/qualitative questionnaires. RESULTS: The tool we created is a browser application for use on desktop or mobile devices. Students log in to see a dashboard of "cards" featuring summaries of assessment results, a portal for the documentation of acquired practical skills, and an overview of their progress along their course. Users see their cohort's average for each format. Learning analytics rank students' strengths by subject. The interface is characterized by colourful and simple graphics. In its initial form, the tool has been rated positively overall by students. During testing, the high task completion rate (78%) and low overall number of non-critical errors indicated good usability, while the quantitative data (system usability scoring) also indicates high ease of use. The source code for the tool is open-source and can be adapted by other medical faculties. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the implemented tool LevelUp is well-accepted by students. It therefore holds promise for improved, digitalized integrated feedback about students' learning progress. Our aim is that LevelUp will help medical students to keep track of their study progress and reflect on their skills. Further development will integrate users' recommendations for additional features as well as optimizing data flow.

Approaches to mapping an undergraduate medical curriculum to a national competency-based catalogue of learning outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Curriculum mapping plays an increasing role in the design and implementation of competency-based medical education. We present an exemplary mapping of an institutional undergraduate medical curriculum to a national competency-based outcome framework to compare approaches to mapping procedures in their capacity to depict the relative coverage. METHODS: The mapping process was performed by a small working group that continuously reconciled its findings. In step 1, we mapped the course objectives of our programme (Charité Berlin, Germany) to the National Competency-Based Catalogue of Learning Outcomes Medicine (NKLM). In step 2, we employed three primarily quantitative approaches (single, multiple, and subordinate match) and one primarily qualitative approach (content comparison) to derive the degree of NKLM coverage. RESULTS: In step 1, we mapped a total of 4400 programme objectives to 2105 NKLM objectives. In step 2, the quantitative approaches provided a general overview of the pattern of coverage, while the qualitative approach required more effort but provided a better representation of the scope and depth of coverage. DISCUSSION: The mapping approach chosen markedly impacts on the results how of well an institutional curriculum covers a national standard. This study highlights the need for more rigour in the methodology and reporting of curriculum mapping.

Development and alignment of undergraduate medical curricula in a web-based, dynamic Learning Opportunities, Objectives and Outcome Platform (LOOOP).

INTRODUCTION: This study presents a web-based method and its interface ensuring alignment of all parts of a curriculum map including competencies, objectives, teaching and assessment methods, workload and patient availability. Needs, acceptance and effectiveness are shown through a nine-year study. METHODS: After a comprehensive needs assessment, the curriculum map and a web-based interface "Learning Opportunities, Objectives and Outcome Platform" (LOOOP) were developed according to Harden's conceptual framework of 10-steps for curriculum mapping. The outcome was measured by surveys and results of interdisciplinary MCQ-assessments. The usage rates and functionalities were analysed. RESULTS: The implementation of LOOOP was significantly associated with improved perception of the curriculum structure by teachers and students, quality of defined objectives and their alignment with teaching and assessment, usage by students to prepare examinations and their scores in interdisciplinary MCQ-assessment. Additionally, LOOOP improved the curriculum coordination by faculty, and assisted departments for identifying patient availability for clinical training. CONCLUSION: LOOOP is well accepted among students and teachers, has positive effect on curriculum development, facilitates effective utilisation of educational resources and improves student's outcomes. Currently, LOOOP is used in five undergraduate medical curricula including 85,000 mapped learning opportunities (lectures, seminars), 5000 registered users (students, teachers) and 380,000 yearly page-visits.

How we avoid patient shortage with an integrated analysis of learning objectives and clinical data during development of undergraduate medical curricula.

Access to patients is a crucial factor for student-centred medical education. However, increasing numbers of students, teacher shortage, a patient spectrum consisting of rarer diseases, and quicker discharges limit this necessary access, and therefore pose a challenge for curriculum designers. The herein presented algorithm improves access to patients in four steps by using routinely available electronic patient data already during curriculum development. Step I: Learning objectives are mapped to appropriate ICD-10 (International Statistical Classification of Diseases) codes. Step II: It is determined which learning opportunities need to be considered first for patient allocation in order to maximise overall benefit. Step III: Hospital's departments with the highest expertise on respective learning objectives are assessed and selected for teaching. Step IV: Patients of the chosen department that present the best match for a given learning opportunity are assigned to participation. This integrated analysis of learning objectives and existing clinical data during curriculum development is a well-structured method to maximise access to patients. Furthermore, this algorithm identifies learning objectives of a curriculum that do not correspond well to the spectrum of patients of the respective teaching hospital and which should therefore be taught in learning formats without patient contact.