1Department of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan
2Bali Psychiatric Center, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei, Taiwan
3Division of Clinical Skills Training, Department of Medical Education, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
4Division of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
5Office of Medical Education, University of New South Wales Australia, Sydney, Australia
Editor: Sun Huh, Hallym University, Korea
© 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: SSH, YYY, BS. Data curation: CCH, YYY, BS. Formal analysis: SJW, YYY. Funding acquisition: YYY, CCC. Methodology: YYY, CCH, SJW. Project administration: CCH, YYY, BS. Visualization: BS, YYY, CCH. Writing–original draft: SSH, YYY, BS, SJW. Writing–review & editing: SSH, CCH, YYY, SJW, CHC, 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
This study was funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare of the Taiwanese Government (107F-M01-0603, 107QC018-2) and Taiwan Association of Medical Education (TAME) (V107EA-008, V108EA-006).
Data availability
Data files are available from Harvard Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/47WSRS
Dataset 1. BCS
GOSCE evaluation and feedback for practicing skills in interviewing and PE in the regular cohort. Rating on the Likert scale: 1=poor to 5=excellent for students’ performance. The scores were converted to percentages for comparison of the baseline GOSCE including interviewing and PE skills of the basic, head-to-toe, and thoracic systems with the end-of-course GOSCE focused on interviewing and PE skills of the gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, and neuromuscular systems.
GOSCE, group objective structured clinical examination; PE, physical examination.
GOSCE evaluation and feedback for practicing skills in interviewing and PE in the intervention cohort. Performance on the Dreyfus scale: 1=new learners, 2=not yet competent, 3=competence, 4=proficiency, and 5=expert-level performance. The score was converted to a percentage for comparison.
GOSCE, group objective structured clinical examination; PE, physical examination.
Characteristic | Regular cohort: 2015 and 2016 classes (n=36) | Intervention cohort: 2017 and 2018 classes (n=36) |
---|---|---|
Age (yr) | 43.8±5.9 | 46.3±8.6 |
Male | 67 | 64 |
Lecturer | 36 | 28 |
Assistant professor | 39 | 39 |
Associate professor | 22 | 28 |
Professor | 3 | 5 |
Affiliation of instructors | ||
Community-based | 31 | 33 |
Hospital-based | 69 | 66 |
Prior participation in workshop on teaching and evaluation of interviewing and physical examination skills | 80 | 78 |
Variable | Items | Range of score |
---|---|---|
Goals of interviewing | Doing a comprehensive interview | 3–15 |
Performing an interview with a case-based focus | ||
Overall time management for interviewing | ||
Goals of the PE | Performing a full PE | 3–15 |
Performing a focused PE | ||
Overall time management for PE |
Variable | Items | Range of score |
---|---|---|
Doing a comprehensive clinical interview | 1. Communication/care skills | 5–25 |
2. Interview techniques | ||
3. Appropriateness of interviewing sequence | ||
4. Time management for interviewing | ||
5. Symptom- and laboratory data-based interviewing | ||
Performing a full PE | 6. Examination/care skills | 5–25 |
7. PE techniques | ||
8. Appropriateness of PE sequence | ||
9. Time management for PE | ||
10. Symptoms and laboratory data-based PE |
Subscale | Items (I am…) | Range of score |
---|---|---|
SDL readiness subscale of Preparation for Hospital Practice Questionnaire | 1. Well-prepared for taking responsibility for my own learning | 6–36 |
2. Well-prepared for continually evaluating my own performance | ||
3. Well-prepared for evaluating my educational experience | ||
4. Well-prepared for investing time in developing my skills | ||
5. Well-prepared for identifying my own educational needs | ||
6. Well-prepared for keeping up to date with medicine | ||
Readiness for interviewing and PE | 1. Performing a comprehensive clinical interviewing | 2–10 |
2. Performing a full PE |
SP-assessed mean score of instructor-created class climate | Average score for course satisfaction for the core and cluster parts | Average scores for the core and cluster parts for the 5 aspects of satisfaction with instructors’ teaching quality | |
---|---|---|---|
Regular cohort | 6.5±1.2 | 3.24±0.37 | 3.82±0.57 |
Intervention cohort | 8.7±1.05* | 4.61±1.12** | 4.48±1.13* |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or %.
GOSCE evaluation and feedback for practicing skills in interviewing and PE in the regular cohort. Rating on the Likert scale: 1=poor to 5=excellent for students’ performance. The scores were converted to percentages for comparison of the baseline GOSCE including interviewing and PE skills of the basic, head-to-toe, and thoracic systems with the end-of-course GOSCE focused on interviewing and PE skills of the gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, and neuromuscular systems. GOSCE, group objective structured clinical examination; PE, physical examination.
GOSCE evaluation and feedback for practicing skills in interviewing and PE in the intervention cohort. Performance on the Dreyfus scale: 1=new learners, 2=not yet competent, 3=competence, 4=proficiency, and 5=expert-level performance. The score was converted to a percentage for comparison. GOSCE, group objective structured clinical examination; PE, physical examination.
Rating on the Likert scale: 1=poor to 5=excellent. The score was converted to a percentage for comparison. PE, physical examination; SDL, self-directed learning.
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation. Likert scale, 1 to 5: 1=poor to 5=excellent. SP, standardized patient. *P<0.05 or **P<0.01 vs. the regular cohort (18 groups in each cohort, from either the 2015–2016 or 2017–2018 classes).