Are 3D printed models acceptable in assessment?

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D) printed models are increasingly used in undergraduate anatomy teaching. However, their role and value in anatomy assessment remains under consideration. The aim of this study was to evaluate student and educator perspectives on acceptability of using novel 3D printed heart models for assessment. METHODS: We used printed 3D models of the heart for first-year medical students, in small group teaching, formative assessment and revision at home. We adopted a mixed methods approach involving questionnaires, then focus groups to collect student and educator views. We used QSR Nvivo to manage thematic analysis of responses, carried out by student and educators, respectively. FINDINGS: Overall, students 89% (n = 75/84) and educators 91% (n = 10/11) found the assessment acceptable. Thematic analysis of focus groups (n = 4 students, n = 5 educators) identified five key perceptions shared across student and educator groups: 3D models are the future, realism is valued, models appear feasible, consistent and provide a potential for a range of applications in assessment. DISCUSSION: There was agreement between educators and students that the use of 3D heart models was acceptable. Key recognised benefits include accessibility and consistency across settings, made more relevant in the current COVID-19 pandemic. We recommend integration of 3D models into teaching and assessment for educational alignment and careful selection of anatomy to model. Further research is required to explore the use of models in summative assessments.

Twelve tips for conducting a virtual OSCE.

Recently many medical schools have faced the challenge of redesigning their existing assessments to run in a virtual format. We ran a virtual Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) for a group of final year students assessing clinical communication skills, written communication, practical skills, examination skills and professionalism. OSCEs provide the opportunity to test skills that written papers cannot, so it was important to include such a clinical exam in the portfolio of assessments for graduating students. The virtual OSCE ran smoothly and was successful at discriminating between candidates. In this article, we share twelve practical tips from our experience and the small body of literature on how to successfully design and deliver a virtual OSCE. This format provides an opportunity to run similar assessments in the future if remote assessments or assessments of telemedicine skills are required.

Doctors who pilot the GMC's Tests of Competence: who volunteers and why?

BACKGROUND: Doctors who are investigated by the General Medical Council for performance concerns may be required to take a Test of Competence (ToC). The tests are piloted on volunteer doctors before they are used in Fitness to Practise (FtP) investigations. OBJECTIVES: To find out who volunteers to take a pilot ToC and why. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study. Between February 2011 and October 2012 we asked doctors who volunteered for a test to complete a questionnaire about their reasons for volunteering and recruitment. We analysed the data using descriptive statistics and Pearson's χ(2) test. RESULTS: 301 doctors completed the questionnaire. Doctors who took a ToC voluntarily were mostly women, of white ethnicity, of junior grades, working in general practice and who held a Primary Medical Qualification (PMQ) from the UK. This was a different population to doctors under investigation and all registered doctors in the UK. Most volunteers heard about the General Medical Council's pilot events through email from a colleague and used the experience to gain exam practice for forthcoming postgraduate exams. CONCLUSIONS: The reference groups of volunteers are not representative of doctors under FtP investigation. Our findings will be used to inform future recruitment strategies with the aim to encourage better matching of groups who voluntarily pilot a ToC with those under FtP investigation.

How well do doctors think they perform on the General Medical Council's Tests of Competence pilot examinations? A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how accurately doctors estimated their performance on the General Medical Council's Tests of Competence pilot examinations. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey design using a questionnaire method. SETTING: University College London Medical School. PARTICIPANTS: 524 medical doctors working in a range of clinical specialties between foundation year two and consultant level. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Estimated and actual total scores on a knowledge test and Observed Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). RESULTS: The pattern of results for OSCE performance differed from the results for knowledge test performance. The majority of doctors significantly underestimated their OSCE performance. Whereas estimated knowledge test performance differed between high and low performers. Those who did particularly well significantly underestimated their knowledge test performance (t (196)=-7.70, p<0.01) and those who did less well significantly overestimated (t (172)=6.09, p<0.01). There were also significant differences between estimated and/or actual performance by gender, ethnicity and region of Primary Medical Qualification. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors were more accurate in predicating their knowledge test performance than their OSCE performance. The association between estimated and actual knowledge test performance supports the established differences between high and low performers described in the behavioural sciences literature. This was not the case for the OSCE. The implications of the results to the revalidation process are discussed.