1Division of Clinical Skills Training and High-fidelity Medical Simulation for Holistic Care and Inter-Professional Collaboration, Department of Medical Education, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
2Department of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan
3Division of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
4Office of Medical Education, University of New South Wales Australia, Sydney, Australia
© 2019, Korea Health Personnel Licensing Examination Institute
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Authors’ contributions
Conceptualization: YYY, BS. Data curation: YYY, BS. Formal analysis: YYY. Funding acquisition: NA. Methodology: YYY. Project administration: YYY, BS. Visualization: YYY, BS. Writing–original draft: YYY, BS. Writing–review & editing: YYY, BS.
Conflict of interest
Boaz Shulruf has been an associate editor of the Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions since 2017, but had no role in the decision to publish this review. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Funding
None.
Variable | Regular group (n=25) | Expert-led tutoring group (n=24) | Expert-led+AI tutoring group (n=23) |
---|---|---|---|
Percentage of those who had a high level of interest (>3 points out of 5) in surgery at baseline (%) | 8/25 (32) | 8/24 (33) | 9/23 (39) |
Performance of initial in-training assessment by expert | |||
Technical performance | - | 69±8 | 70±5 |
Global rating | - | 3.4±0.5 | 3.6±0.2 |
Performance on common end-of-surgical block objective structured clinical examination | |||
Technical performance | 71.5±3 | 79.1±4 (15% increase from baseline) | 90.2±2a),b) (30% increase from baseline) |
Global rating | 3.7±0.3 | 4.0±0.6 (18% increase from baseline) | 4.5±0.9a),b) (25% increase from baseline) |
Variable | Technical performance score | Pass rate (%) | Follow-up self-assessed confidence to perform suturing and ligatures on real patients |
---|---|---|---|
1 Practice session (n=23) | 69.4±12 | 25.00±3.7 | 3.8±0.3 |
2 Practice sessions (n=13) | 80.4±9a) | 55.00±3.2a) | 4.0±0.12 |
Absolute increase from baseline (%) | 11.08 | 30 | 0.2 |
3 Practice sessions (n=6) | 87.1±8a) | 81.00±3.8a),b) | 4.7±1.2a) |
Absolute increase from baseline (%) | 17.7a) | 56a) | 0.9 |
Characteristic | Regular group (n=25) | Expert-led tutoring group (n=24) | Expert-led+AI group (n=23) |
---|---|---|---|
Mean age (yr) | 27±4 | 28±2 | 29±3 |
Gender distribution (male/female) | 14/11 | 12/12 | 12/11 |
Prior experience of observing suturing/ligature skills on real patients (%) | 10/25 (40) | 11/24 (46) | 11/23 (48) |
Baseline self-assessed confidence to perform suturing/ligatures on real patients (points out of 5) | 2.4±0.5 | 2.6±0.2 | 2.5±0.1 |
Post-objective structured clinical examination self-assessed confidence to perform suturing/ligatures on real patients (points out of 5) | 2.7±0.1 | 3.4±0.3 | 4.0±0.5 |
Percentage showing improvement in self-assessed confidence from baseline (%) | 15 | 31 | 60 |
Variable | Regular group (n=25) | Expert-led tutoring group (n=24) | Expert-led+AI tutoring group (n=23) |
---|---|---|---|
Percentage of those who had a high level of interest (>3 points out of 5) in surgery at baseline (%) | 8/25 (32) | 8/24 (33) | 9/23 (39) |
Performance of initial in-training assessment by expert | |||
Technical performance | - | 69±8 | 70±5 |
Global rating | - | 3.4±0.5 | 3.6±0.2 |
Performance on common end-of-surgical block objective structured clinical examination | |||
Technical performance | 71.5±3 | 79.1±4 (15% increase from baseline) | 90.2±2 |
Global rating | 3.7±0.3 | 4.0±0.6 (18% increase from baseline) | 4.5±0.9 |
Variable | Technical performance score | Pass rate (%) | Follow-up self-assessed confidence to perform suturing and ligatures on real patients |
---|---|---|---|
1 Practice session (n=23) | 69.4±12 | 25.00±3.7 | 3.8±0.3 |
2 Practice sessions (n=13) | 80.4±9 |
55.00±3.2 |
4.0±0.12 |
Absolute increase from baseline (%) | 11.08 | 30 | 0.2 |
3 Practice sessions (n=6) | 87.1±8 |
81.00±3.8 |
4.7±1.2 |
Absolute increase from baseline (%) | 17.7 |
56 |
0.9 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number, unless otherwise stated. AI, artificial intelligence.
Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation, unless otherwise stated. AI, artificial intelligence. P<0.05 vs. expert-led tutoring group’s interns. P<0.05 vs. regular group’s medical interns.
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number, unless otherwise stated. AI, artificial intelligence. P<0.05 vs. the 1-practice group. P<0.05 vs. the 2-practice group.