ArticleAEM education and training2021
Curated collections for educators: Six key papers on teaching procedural skills.
Article in AEM education and training, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- An investigation into emergency medicine resident cricothyrotomy competency: Is three the magic number?AEM education and training · 2023Article
- Curated collections for educators: Nine key articles and article series for teaching qualitative research methods.AEM education and training · 2023Article
- Recommendation for consideration of virtual options for teaching procedural skills.AEM education and training · 2022Article
- Intervention, individual, and contextual determinants to high adherence to structured family-centered rounds: a national multi-site mixed methods study.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Curated collections for educators: Six key papers on teaching procedural skills.AEM education and training · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCompetence in teaching procedural skills is required for faculty in all specialties. Regardless of involvement in undergraduate medical education (UME) versus graduate medical education (GME), faculty will likely be involved in teaching procedures to novice learners at some point, with the goal of having the learner achieve graduated independence and technical competence in a skill set. A large body of literature exists addressing the best practices for teaching and maintaining procedural skills. We searched for articles that describe the best practices for teaching procedural skills to all levels of learners.
methodsWe conducted a literature search for papers on procedural skills training and teaching. We also made a call for papers on social media from members of the online #MedEd and #FOAMed communities. Once a list of the articles was compiled, we conducted a three-round modified Delphi process to identify those illustrating best practices for teaching procedural skills by both junior and senior faculty.
resultsWe identified 98 relevant articles on the topic of procedural skills training. Six articles were deemed to be highly relevant after three rounds of the modified Delphi. Best practices included using an established educational framework when designing procedural skills teaching sessions, providing positive feedback to learners with opportunities for improvement, and demonstrating the procedure to the learners.
conclusionsMedical educators should employ evidence-based practices when designing and delivering procedural skills sessions. Educational frameworks provide faculty developers and facilitators with an organized approach to teaching these sessions. Maintenance of procedural skills over time is key; faculty can utilize simulation-based procedural training and deliberate practice to prevent decay of learned skills.
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.