Search results for: RCSI

Authors: Kathryn Strachan, Sameer Otoom, Amal AL-Gallaf, Ahmed Al Ansari

Abstract:

Introduction: Introducing a reliable method to select graduates for an award in higher education can be challenging but is not impossible. Multisource feedback (MSF) is a popular assessment tool that relies on evaluations of different groups of people, including physicians and non-physicians. It is useful for assessing several domains, including professionalism, communication and collaboration and may be useful for selecting the best interns to receive a University award. Methods: 16 graduates responded to an invitation to participate in the student award, which was conducted by the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland-Bahrain Medical University of Bahrain (RCSI Bahrain) using the MSF process. Five individuals from the following categories rated each participant: physicians, nurses, and fellow students. RCSI Bahrain graduates were assessed in the following domains; professionalism, communication, and collaboration. Mean and standard deviation were calculated and the award was given to the graduate who scored the highest among his/her colleagues. Cronbach’s coefficient was used to determine the questionnaire’s internal consistency and reliability. Factor analysis was conducted to examine for the construct validity. Results: 16 graduates participated in the RCSI-Bahrain interns’ award based on the MSF process, giving us a 16.5% response rate. The instrument was found to be suitable for factor analysis and showed 3 factor solutions representing 79.3% of the total variance. Reliability analysis using Cronbach’s α reliability of internal consistency indicated that the full scale of the instrument had high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α 0.98). Conclusion: This study found the MSF process to be reliable and valid for selecting the best graduates for the interns’ awards. However, the low response rates may suggest that the process is not feasible for allowing the majority of the students to participate in the selection process. Further research studies may be required to support the feasibility of the MSF process in selecting graduates for the university award.

Keywords: MSF, RCSI, validity, Bahrain

Procedia PDF Downloads 342

Authors: Daly M. J, Condron C, Mulhall C, Eppich W, O'Neill J.

Abstract:

Introduction: In contemporary clinical cardiology, comprehensive and holistic bedside evaluation including accurate cardiac auscultation is in decline despite having positive effects on patients and their outcomes. Methods: Scripted histories and scoring checklists for three clinical scenarios in cardiology were co-created and refined through iterative consensus by a panel of clinical experts; these were then paired with recordings of auscultatory findings from three actual patients with known valvular heart disease. A wearable vest with embedded pressure-sensitive panel speakers was developed to transmit these recordings when examined at the standard auscultation points. RCSI medical students volunteered for a series of three formative long case examinations in cardiology (LC1 – LC3) using this hybrid simulation. Participants were randomised into two groups: Group 1 received individual teaching from an expert trainer between LC1 and LC2; Group 2 received the same intervention between LC2 and LC3. Each participant’s long case examination performance was recorded and blindly scored by two peer participants and two RCSI examiners. Results: Sixty-eight participants were included in the study (age 27.6 ± 0.1 years; 74% female) and randomised into two groups; there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups. Overall, the median total faculty examiner score was 39.8% (35.8 – 44.6%) in LC1 and increased to 63.3% (56.9 – 66.4%) in LC3, with those in Group 1 showing a greater improvement in LC2 total score than that observed in Group 2 (p < .001). Using the novel checklist, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were excellent between examiners in all cases: ICC .994 – .997 (p < .001); correlation between peers and examiners improved in LC2 following peer grading of LC1 performances: ICC .857 – .867 (p < .001). Conclusion: Hybrid simulation and quantitative grading improve learning, standardisation of assessment, and direct comparisons of both performance and acumen in clinical cardiology.

Keywords: cardiology, clinical skills, long case examination, hybrid simulation, checklist

Procedia PDF Downloads 109