Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33127166›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery2020

Virtual ARCP assessment and trainee feedback meetings: facilitating the best experience and practice.

R S Oeppen, E Rutherford, P Sadler, R Isaac, P A Brennan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

R S OeppenUniversity Hospitals Southampton, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
E RutherfordUniversity Hospitals Southampton, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
P SadlerHEE Wessex, Southern House, Otterbourne, SO21 2RU, UK.
R IsaacQueen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, PO6 3LY, UK.
P A BrennanQueen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, PO6 3LY, UK. Electronic address: Peter.brennan@porthosp.nhs.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As a result of COVID-19, there has been an exponential increase in the use of remote technology for many local, regional and national meetings that would previously have been held on a face-to-face basis. Remote meetings have ensured that essential clinical, educational and strategic work can continue but it is not 'business as usual', although colleagues accept this form of communication as the new norm. In medical education and assessment, the Annual Review of Competence Progression (ARCP) meetings and other formative educational meetings are being conducted remotely. This form of communication has some advantages but may also present possible barriers for feedback and development particularly for 'trainees in difficulty' when there are concerns about progression, and when an unsatisfactory outcome has been awarded. It is also worth remembering that there may be generational differences with the ease of use of virtual meeting platforms. We present some of the important factors for optimising the panel of virtual ARCPs and discuss methods to improve feedback given remotely for trainees.

Indexed as

COVID-19Education, MedicalClinical CompetenceCommunicationFeedbackHumansSARS-CoV-2ARCPassessmentfeedbackhuman factorspandemicTrainingvirtual meeting

Identifiers

PMID33127166
PMCPMC7556257

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.