Innovations report: A grading committee for a required fourth-year emergency medicine clerkship

IF 1.7 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Meredith Thompson MD, Megan Rivera MD, Jeffrey Katz MD, Nicholas Maldonado MD, Caroline Srihari MD, Michael Marchick MD, Rosemarie Fernandez MD
{"title":"Innovations report: A grading committee for a required fourth-year emergency medicine clerkship","authors":"Meredith Thompson MD,&nbsp;Megan Rivera MD,&nbsp;Jeffrey Katz MD,&nbsp;Nicholas Maldonado MD,&nbsp;Caroline Srihari MD,&nbsp;Michael Marchick MD,&nbsp;Rosemarie Fernandez MD","doi":"10.1002/aet2.11012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Assessment of medical students in the clinical learning environment is fraught with challenges. Seemingly small variations in clinical clerkship evaluation can significantly impact a student's future. As such, the integrity of the grade selection process must be heavily scrutinized. Group decision making in the form of a clerkship grading committee may be part of a solution to address this complex problem.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a retrospective observational study to describe grading committee decisions for a required fourth-year EM clerkship from August 2021 to April 2022. Literature on best practices for group decision making and assessment were reviewed. This informed the development and implementation of the committee process. Each committee meeting was video recorded and coded for discussion time per student, times the committee grade differed from historical-grade cutoffs with reasoning, and the frequency a committee member voiced a first-hand account of student performance.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Data from nine meetings was reviewed (86 students). The mean discussion time per student was 2 min 13 s (range 11 s to 9 min 22 s). The final committee decision differed from historical-grade cutoffs for nine students (10%), six were adjusted above and three below. In 64% (55/86) of student reviews a committee member voiced a first-hand experience of working with the student. Positive grade adjustments were made due to outlier evaluations and negative adjustments were made for professionalism concerns.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Grading committees are a means to conduct a comprehensive review of student performance and offer shared ownership of the grade decision among committee members. More study is needed to directly determine their potential benefit and role in clerkship grading.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":37032,"journal":{"name":"AEM Education and Training","volume":"8 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AEM Education and Training","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aet2.11012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Assessment of medical students in the clinical learning environment is fraught with challenges. Seemingly small variations in clinical clerkship evaluation can significantly impact a student's future. As such, the integrity of the grade selection process must be heavily scrutinized. Group decision making in the form of a clerkship grading committee may be part of a solution to address this complex problem.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective observational study to describe grading committee decisions for a required fourth-year EM clerkship from August 2021 to April 2022. Literature on best practices for group decision making and assessment were reviewed. This informed the development and implementation of the committee process. Each committee meeting was video recorded and coded for discussion time per student, times the committee grade differed from historical-grade cutoffs with reasoning, and the frequency a committee member voiced a first-hand account of student performance.

Results

Data from nine meetings was reviewed (86 students). The mean discussion time per student was 2 min 13 s (range 11 s to 9 min 22 s). The final committee decision differed from historical-grade cutoffs for nine students (10%), six were adjusted above and three below. In 64% (55/86) of student reviews a committee member voiced a first-hand experience of working with the student. Positive grade adjustments were made due to outlier evaluations and negative adjustments were made for professionalism concerns.

Conclusions

Grading committees are a means to conduct a comprehensive review of student performance and offer shared ownership of the grade decision among committee members. More study is needed to directly determine their potential benefit and role in clerkship grading.

创新报告:四年级急诊医学实习评分委员会。
背景:在临床学习环境中对医学生进行评估充满了挑战。临床实习评价中看似微小的差异都会对学生的未来产生重大影响。因此,必须严格审查评分选择过程的完整性。以实习评分委员会为形式的集体决策可能是解决这一复杂问题的方法之一:我们进行了一项回顾性观察研究,以描述评分委员会在 2021 年 8 月至 2022 年 4 月期间对四年级急诊实习的决策。我们回顾了有关小组决策和评估最佳实践的文献。这为委员会流程的制定和实施提供了依据。每次委员会会议都进行了录像,并对每位学生的讨论时间、委员会评分与历史分数线不同的次数(说明理由)以及委员会成员对学生表现发表第一手意见的频率进行了编码:对九次会议(86 名学生)的数据进行了审查。每位学生的平均讨论时间为 2 分 13 秒(11 秒至 9 分 22 秒不等)。委员会的最终决定与 9 名学生(10%)的历史分数线不同,6 名学生的分数线高于历史分数线,3 名学生的分数线低于历史分数线。在 64%(55/86)的学生评语中,委员会成员都表达了与学生合作的第一手经验。积极的成绩调整是由于离群的评价,消极的调整则是出于专业性的考虑:评分委员会是对学生表现进行全面审查的一种手段,也是委员会成员共同决定成绩的一种方式。需要进行更多研究,以直接确定其在实习评分中的潜在益处和作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AEM Education and Training
AEM Education and Training Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
22.20%
发文量
89
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信