Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33840646›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of medical education2021

Can case-based discussions in a group setting be used to assess residents' clinical skills?

Rakel F Johansen, René B Nielsen, Bente V Malling, Hanne Storm

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Rakel F JohansenSteno Diabetes Center Aarhus, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.
René B NielsenDEFACTUM, Koncern Kvalitet, Central Denmark Region, Denmark.
Bente V MallingDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Health, Aarhus University, Denmark.
Hanne StormDiagnostic Center, Regional Hospital Silkeborg, Regional Hospital Central, Jutland, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe purpose of this study was to explore residents' and assessors' perception of a new group assessment concept.

methodsThis qualitative study consists of observations of four group assessment sessions, followed by semi-structured interviews with six residents and four assessors (specialists in internal medicine), who all volunteered to be interviewed. All residents at a medical department (eleven to fifteen each time) and four assessors participated in four group assessments, where the residents' clinical skills were assessed through case-based discussions. An external consultant (an anthropologist) performed the observations and the interviews. Notes from the observations and the interviews were analyzed using an inductive approach.

resultsEight of the ten interviewed participants preferred group assessment to individual assessment. Results from the interviews suggested that the group assessments were more consistent and that the level of discussion was perceived to be higher in the group discussions compared to the one-to-one discussions. All residents indicated that they had acquired new knowledge during their assessment and reported having learned from listening to the assessment of their peers. Assessors similarly reported gaining new knowledge.

conclusionsThe residents and assessors expressed very favourable attitudes toward the new group assessment concept. The assessment process was perceived to be higher in quality and more consistent, contributing to learning for all participating doctors in the department. Group assessment is feasible and acceptable, and provides a promising tool for assessment of clinical skills in the future.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceInternship and ResidencyHumansInternal MedicineLearningQualitative Researchcase-based discussionclinical skillsinternal medicineresidentsworkplace-based assessment

Identifiers

PMID33840646
PMCPMC8411343

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.