ArticlePloS one2017
Physical examination skills training: Faculty staff vs. patient instructor feedback-A controlled trial.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of simulated participant professional performance in health professional education: a scoping review.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Review
- Integrating expert patients perspectives on the processes of engaging them in early medical education.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- A Novel Teaching-Learning Method of Utilizing Ultrasonography as a Tool to Enhance Clinical Examination Skills of House Surgeons in Evaluating Cervical Lymph Nodes.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2023Article
- Clinical Competence and Perception of Medical Students after Early Clinical Exposure through Pre-clerckship Education at an Ethiopian Medical School: A Cross-sectional Study.Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2022Article
- Nomenclature of real patients in health professional education by role and engagement: a narrative literature review.Canadian medical education journal · 2022Review
- Raising rare disease awareness using red flags, role play simulation and patient educators: results of a novel educational workshop on Raynaud phenomenon and systemic sclerosis.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2020Review
- Dreyfus scale-based feedback increases the medical student's satisfaction with the complex cluster part of the interviewing and physical examination course and skills' readiness in Taiwan.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStandardized patients are widely used in training of medical students, both in teaching and assessment. They also frequently lead complete training sessions delivering physical examination skills without the aid of faculty teaching staff-acting as "patient instructors" (PIs). An important part of this training is their ability to provide detailed structured feedback to students which has a strong impact on their learning success. Yet, to date no study has assessed the quality of physical examination related feedback by PIs. Therefore, we conducted a randomized controlled study comparing feedback of PIs and faculty staff following a physical examination assessed by students and video assessors.
methods14 PIs and 14 different faculty staff physicians both delivered feedback to 40 medical students that had performed a physical examination on the respective PI while the physicians observed the performance. The physical examination was rated by two independent video assessors to provide an objective performance standard (gold standard). Feedback of PI and physicians was content analyzed by two different independent video assessors based on a provided checklist and compared to the performance standard. Feedback of PIs and physicians was also rated by medical students and video assessors using a questionnaire consisting of 12 items.
resultsThere was no statistical significant difference concerning overall matching of physician or PI feedback with gold standard ratings by video assessment (p = .219). There was also no statistical difference when focusing only on items that were classified as major key steps (p = .802), mistakes or parts that were left out during physical examination (p = .219) or mistakes in communication items (p = .517). The feedback of physicians was significantly better rated than PI feedback both by students (p = .043) as well as by video assessors (p = .034).
conclusionsIn summary, our study demonstrates that trained PIs are able to provide feedback of equal quantitative value to that of faculty staff physicians with regard to a physical examination performed on them. However, both the students and the video raters judged the quality of the feedback given by the physicians to be significantly better than that of the PIs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.