ArticleBMC medical education2026
Analysis of OSCE-based clinical competency assessment among critical care medicine residents in Zhejiang Province, China: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a standard tool for assessing clinical competence in standardized residency training. However, detailed multi‑station performance analyses focusing on critical care residents are limited. This multicenter retrospective cohort study evaluated OSCE scores across training bases in Zhejiang Province to identify educational gaps and inform training optimization.
methodsWe retrospectively collected clinical competency assessment scores of 175 residents from seven standardized residency training bases (2023-2025), including all eligible residents during the study period (total population sampling; no formal sample size calculation was required). Data were collected using standardized OSCE scoring sheets. The OSCE included seven stations: History Taking (HT), Physical Examination (PE), Initial Medical Progress Note (IMPN), Comprehensive Medical Record (CMR), Clinical Reasoning and Decision‑making (CRDM), Basic Clinical Skills (BCS), and Specialty‑specific Clinical Skills (SCS). Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Spearman's correlation with Bonferroni correction were used for analysis.
resultsThe overall pass rate was 97.71% (171/175). Significant inter‑base differences were found only for IMPN (P = 0.004) and CMR (P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed across trainee types or genders. CRDM had the lowest median score (85.0 pts) and widest distribution. Only HT and PE showed a moderate positive correlation (ρ = 0.60, P < 0.001 after correction). Annual trends revealed progressive improvement in HT and PE (2025 vs. 2023, both P ≤ 0.004), while IMPN and SCS peaked in 2024 then declined (both P < 0.001).These results directly address the study aim of comparing performance across bases, trainee types, genders, and years.
conclusionsCritical care residents performed well in procedural skills, but clinical reasoning remains a notable weakness, and documentation quality varies across bases. These findings support the need for systematic clinical reasoning training, cross-institutional standardization of medical writing, and continuous quality monitoring to improve competency-based education in critical care medicine.
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.