Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19237698›Full record

ArticleNeurology2009

Experience may not be the best teacher: patient logs do not correlate with clerkship performance.

Sharon N Poisson, Douglas J Gelb, Mary F S Oh, Larry D Gruppen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Thoracic ultrasound competence for ultrasound-guided pleural procedures.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2019
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sharon N PoissonDepartment of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Douglas J Gelb
Mary F S Oh
Larry D Gruppen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the recent emphasis on core competencies, medical schools and residency programs have attempted to monitor and regulate trainees' patient encounters. The educational validity of this practice is unknown. Our objective was to determine whether patient encounter logs correlate with educational outcomes.

methodsWe reviewed patient logs of all 212 neurology clerkship students from the 2005-2006 academic year and determined the number of patients each student saw in five diagnostic categories (seizure, headache, stroke, acute mental status change, and dementia). We compared these numbers with the students' written examination scores (total and category-specific) and clinical evaluation scores using Pearson product-moment correlations.

resultsThe more patients in a given diagnostic category that students saw, the lower the students' examination subscores in that disease category (r = -0.066, p = 0.03). The total number of patients each student saw did not correlate with the student's total examination score (r = -0.021, p = 0.77) or the student's overall clinical performance rating (r = 0.089, p = 0.23).

conclusionsHigher numbers of logged patients did not correlate with better clerkship performance, whether the outcome measures were written tests or faculty ratings, and whether the analysis involved total or disease-specific patient counts. Thus, patient census may not be a meaningful index of educational experience or outcome. Considerable time, money, and effort are required to maintain accurate logs of trainees' encounters with patients; based on the current study, this may be an inefficient use of resources.

Indexed as

Clinical ClerkshipClinical CompetenceEducational MeasurementPatient CareHumansNervous System DiseasesNeurologyPatients

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.