Hindu Rao Pharm.D., Richard Beuttler Psy.D., M.S., Madeline Dintzner Ph.D., Reza Taheri Pharm.D., MBA, Albert T. Bach Pharm.D., Neeloufar Fakourfar Pharm.D.
{"title":"反馈策略在一系列以交流为重点的病人护理模拟中的影响","authors":"Hindu Rao Pharm.D., Richard Beuttler Psy.D., M.S., Madeline Dintzner Ph.D., Reza Taheri Pharm.D., MBA, Albert T. Bach Pharm.D., Neeloufar Fakourfar Pharm.D.","doi":"10.1002/jac5.1959","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Patient care simulations (PCS) and objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE) allow pharmacy students to practice communication. Feedback can help improve communication, but the impact over time is not well understood.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>This study investigated the impact of a feedback strategy on pharmacy students' communication skills over three PCS. It also evaluated the alignment between students' self-scoring and faculty scoring.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Pharmacy students participated in three sessions (PCS1, OSCE, and PCS3) that were focused on the affective domain. Individualized numerical and narrative feedback was provided to students on their performance after PCS1. Students' communication was scored by faculty graders out of an 18-point validated rubric. Students self-scored their communication with the same rubric. Faculty and student scores were compared using a linear mixed effects model, and an intraclass correlation coefficient was used to measure agreement.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>In PCS1, 82 students scored an average of 15.41 ± 2.14 for faculty scores and 16.06 ± 1.55 for self-graded scores (0.36, <i>p</i> < 0.001). In the OSCE, 81 students had an average of 15.93 ± 1.86 for faculty scores and 16.45 ± 1.35 for self-graded scores (0.1, <i>p</i> = 0.18). In PCS3, 74 students scored an average of 15.22 ± 2.15 for faculty scores and 16.25 ± 1.44 for self-graded scores (0.14, <i>p</i> = 0.08). A correlation between faculty and student scores was seen for PCS1. Over the three sessions, no significant differences were found between student self-graded scores (<i>p</i> = 0.08), but faculty scores did differ, with the OSCE having higher scores than PCS3 (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Many students with faculty-graded scores greater than 1 standard deviation below the mean scored themselves higher than faculty did.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Feedback after PCS1 did not significantly improve scores. Students with low faculty-graded scores frequently scored themselves higher indicating low self-awareness.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":73966,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of a feedback strategy in a series of communication-focused patient care simulations\",\"authors\":\"Hindu Rao Pharm.D., Richard Beuttler Psy.D., M.S., Madeline Dintzner Ph.D., Reza Taheri Pharm.D., MBA, Albert T. Bach Pharm.D., Neeloufar Fakourfar Pharm.D.\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jac5.1959\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Patient care simulations (PCS) and objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE) allow pharmacy students to practice communication. Feedback can help improve communication, but the impact over time is not well understood.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study investigated the impact of a feedback strategy on pharmacy students' communication skills over three PCS. It also evaluated the alignment between students' self-scoring and faculty scoring.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Pharmacy students participated in three sessions (PCS1, OSCE, and PCS3) that were focused on the affective domain. Individualized numerical and narrative feedback was provided to students on their performance after PCS1. Students' communication was scored by faculty graders out of an 18-point validated rubric. Students self-scored their communication with the same rubric. Faculty and student scores were compared using a linear mixed effects model, and an intraclass correlation coefficient was used to measure agreement.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>In PCS1, 82 students scored an average of 15.41 ± 2.14 for faculty scores and 16.06 ± 1.55 for self-graded scores (0.36, <i>p</i> < 0.001). In the OSCE, 81 students had an average of 15.93 ± 1.86 for faculty scores and 16.45 ± 1.35 for self-graded scores (0.1, <i>p</i> = 0.18). In PCS3, 74 students scored an average of 15.22 ± 2.15 for faculty scores and 16.25 ± 1.44 for self-graded scores (0.14, <i>p</i> = 0.08). A correlation between faculty and student scores was seen for PCS1. Over the three sessions, no significant differences were found between student self-graded scores (<i>p</i> = 0.08), but faculty scores did differ, with the OSCE having higher scores than PCS3 (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Many students with faculty-graded scores greater than 1 standard deviation below the mean scored themselves higher than faculty did.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Feedback after PCS1 did not significantly improve scores. Students with low faculty-graded scores frequently scored themselves higher indicating low self-awareness.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jac5.1959\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy : JACCP","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jac5.1959","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Impact of a feedback strategy in a series of communication-focused patient care simulations
Introduction
Patient care simulations (PCS) and objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE) allow pharmacy students to practice communication. Feedback can help improve communication, but the impact over time is not well understood.
Objective
This study investigated the impact of a feedback strategy on pharmacy students' communication skills over three PCS. It also evaluated the alignment between students' self-scoring and faculty scoring.
Methods
Pharmacy students participated in three sessions (PCS1, OSCE, and PCS3) that were focused on the affective domain. Individualized numerical and narrative feedback was provided to students on their performance after PCS1. Students' communication was scored by faculty graders out of an 18-point validated rubric. Students self-scored their communication with the same rubric. Faculty and student scores were compared using a linear mixed effects model, and an intraclass correlation coefficient was used to measure agreement.
Results
In PCS1, 82 students scored an average of 15.41 ± 2.14 for faculty scores and 16.06 ± 1.55 for self-graded scores (0.36, p < 0.001). In the OSCE, 81 students had an average of 15.93 ± 1.86 for faculty scores and 16.45 ± 1.35 for self-graded scores (0.1, p = 0.18). In PCS3, 74 students scored an average of 15.22 ± 2.15 for faculty scores and 16.25 ± 1.44 for self-graded scores (0.14, p = 0.08). A correlation between faculty and student scores was seen for PCS1. Over the three sessions, no significant differences were found between student self-graded scores (p = 0.08), but faculty scores did differ, with the OSCE having higher scores than PCS3 (p < 0.01). Many students with faculty-graded scores greater than 1 standard deviation below the mean scored themselves higher than faculty did.
Conclusion
Feedback after PCS1 did not significantly improve scores. Students with low faculty-graded scores frequently scored themselves higher indicating low self-awareness.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
