{"title":"高风险 OSCE 的培训框架:来自志愿者标准化病人库的经验。","authors":"Eva Feigerlova","doi":"10.1111/tct.13787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Training of standardized patients (SPs) for national high-stakes OSCE helps to ensure a reliable assessment of student performance in various clinical scenarios. However, workflow protocols to train SPs vary. Medical schools adopt specific measures to ensure standardization.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Approach</h3>\n \n <p>We present a development workflow of the SPs' training framework for high-stakes OSCE using a volunteer SPs' bank. Our approach was guided by the social learning theory. Three educators and 17/20 (85%) members of our volunteer SPs' bank worked in a collaborative partnership on the construction of pedagogical content of the training framework comprising three 2-hour sessions. Since SPs have to demonstrate acquired behaviors, intended learning outcomes used the words “apply”, “perform” and “participate.”</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Evaluation</h3>\n \n <p>A principal part of the evaluation was the achievement of intended learning outcomes by the SPs during 3 formative OSCEs. Seventeen SPs, 356 fourth year medical students and 60 examiners participated. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected by post-session questionnaires and analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Twelve examiners evaluated a mean of 29.7+/−0.14 SD patient-student encounters. In total, 15/16 SPs (93.8%) considered the contact with students as easy and 4 SPs (31%) reported the experience as stressful. Two themes emerged from the free-text comments: “Gaining experience as SP” and “Concerns for evaluated students.”</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Implication</h3>\n \n <p>The proposed SPs' training framework for high-stakes OSCE may be useful for other medical disciplines and health professions initiating SP-based assessment programs. The strategy of development and evaluation are outlined to guide a successful application of the curriculum standards.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47324,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Teacher","volume":"21 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/tct.13787","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Training framework for high-stakes OSCE: Experience from volunteer standardized patients' bank\",\"authors\":\"Eva Feigerlova\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/tct.13787\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Training of standardized patients (SPs) for national high-stakes OSCE helps to ensure a reliable assessment of student performance in various clinical scenarios. However, workflow protocols to train SPs vary. Medical schools adopt specific measures to ensure standardization.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Approach</h3>\\n \\n <p>We present a development workflow of the SPs' training framework for high-stakes OSCE using a volunteer SPs' bank. Our approach was guided by the social learning theory. Three educators and 17/20 (85%) members of our volunteer SPs' bank worked in a collaborative partnership on the construction of pedagogical content of the training framework comprising three 2-hour sessions. Since SPs have to demonstrate acquired behaviors, intended learning outcomes used the words “apply”, “perform” and “participate.”</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Evaluation</h3>\\n \\n <p>A principal part of the evaluation was the achievement of intended learning outcomes by the SPs during 3 formative OSCEs. Seventeen SPs, 356 fourth year medical students and 60 examiners participated. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected by post-session questionnaires and analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Twelve examiners evaluated a mean of 29.7+/−0.14 SD patient-student encounters. In total, 15/16 SPs (93.8%) considered the contact with students as easy and 4 SPs (31%) reported the experience as stressful. Two themes emerged from the free-text comments: “Gaining experience as SP” and “Concerns for evaluated students.”</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Implication</h3>\\n \\n <p>The proposed SPs' training framework for high-stakes OSCE may be useful for other medical disciplines and health professions initiating SP-based assessment programs. The strategy of development and evaluation are outlined to guide a successful application of the curriculum standards.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47324,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Teacher\",\"volume\":\"21 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/tct.13787\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Teacher\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tct.13787\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Teacher","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tct.13787","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Training framework for high-stakes OSCE: Experience from volunteer standardized patients' bank
Background
Training of standardized patients (SPs) for national high-stakes OSCE helps to ensure a reliable assessment of student performance in various clinical scenarios. However, workflow protocols to train SPs vary. Medical schools adopt specific measures to ensure standardization.
Approach
We present a development workflow of the SPs' training framework for high-stakes OSCE using a volunteer SPs' bank. Our approach was guided by the social learning theory. Three educators and 17/20 (85%) members of our volunteer SPs' bank worked in a collaborative partnership on the construction of pedagogical content of the training framework comprising three 2-hour sessions. Since SPs have to demonstrate acquired behaviors, intended learning outcomes used the words “apply”, “perform” and “participate.”
Evaluation
A principal part of the evaluation was the achievement of intended learning outcomes by the SPs during 3 formative OSCEs. Seventeen SPs, 356 fourth year medical students and 60 examiners participated. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected by post-session questionnaires and analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Twelve examiners evaluated a mean of 29.7+/−0.14 SD patient-student encounters. In total, 15/16 SPs (93.8%) considered the contact with students as easy and 4 SPs (31%) reported the experience as stressful. Two themes emerged from the free-text comments: “Gaining experience as SP” and “Concerns for evaluated students.”
Implication
The proposed SPs' training framework for high-stakes OSCE may be useful for other medical disciplines and health professions initiating SP-based assessment programs. The strategy of development and evaluation are outlined to guide a successful application of the curriculum standards.
期刊介绍:
The Clinical Teacher has been designed with the active, practising clinician in mind. It aims to provide a digest of current research, practice and thinking in medical education presented in a readable, stimulating and practical style. The journal includes sections for reviews of the literature relating to clinical teaching bringing authoritative views on the latest thinking about modern teaching. There are also sections on specific teaching approaches, a digest of the latest research published in Medical Education and other teaching journals, reports of initiatives and advances in thinking and practical teaching from around the world, and expert community and discussion on challenging and controversial issues in today"s clinical education.