https://imedsciences.com/ editor_ijims@hotmail.com
ISSN: 2394-4137 (E) 2394-6318 (P)

IJIMS.2020.110

Type of Article: Original Research

Volume 7; Issue 5: 2020

Page No.: 914-921

DOI: 10.16965/ijims.2020.110

PROCEDURALIZING THE ART OF CLINICAL SKILLS TEACHING

Sateesh Babu, Arja *, Simi Paramban, Kumar Ponnusamy, Praveen Kottathveetil, Tarig Fadlallah Altahir Ahmed, Sireesha Bala Arja.

Avalon University School of Medicine (AUSOM), Curacao.

Corresponding Author:  Dr. Sateesh Babu Arja, M.B.B.S, MHPE, MSPH, FAMEE, SFHEA, FIAMSE, FAcadMEd, Director of Clinical Skills, Avalon University School of Medicine, Willemstad, Curacao Phone number- 011-599-96965682 E-Mail: sarja@avalonu.org

ABSTRACT:

Purpose: Literature suggests that there are two common teaching methods in clinical skills are the four-step approach of Peyton and the theory of instructional design by Gagne. The combination of these two teaching methods was planned and implemented in the undergraduate medical program at Avalon University, Curacao, in training and teaching clinical skills during the first two years of the program. The objective behind developing this teaching modality is to offer more chances to repeat the demonstration by the instructors, to rehearsal by students, and to provide instant feedback on specific concepts of clinical skills. This study aims to examine further and evaluate this teaching method for clinical skills.

Methods: This is a quasi-experimental study that was conducted to evaluate the new teaching method. The data were gathered in summer 2017, which is a control group and for another three groups; fall 2017, winter 2018, and summer 2018, which are study groups. A survey of course evaluations was developed to collect both qualitative and quantitative feedback from students at the end of the course. The quantitative questionnaire included 17 questions used a five-point Likert scale with one of the following responses; one indicates strongly disagree, two-disagree, three-neutral/no opinion, four-agree, and five-strongly agree. Qualitative analysis was done based on the responses from students for open-ended questions. Quantitative data were gathered even for students’ grades on the final assessments.

Results: Students’ responses (survey questionnaire) data were analyzed for descriptive statistics. The response rate for the summer 2017 group (control) is 100% and 95.65%, 87.5%, and 90.9% for the three study groups, respectively. Students’ feedback for all questions showed improved satisfaction with the new method of teaching. The class performance (mean grade) of different groups was shown a difference which is statistically significant (p<0.05) on the Kruskal-Wallis test.

Conclusion: The new modality of teaching in clinical skills showed that students are more satisfied and also improved students’ performance.

Key words: Clinical Skills, Assessment, Feedback, Teaching, Evaluation.

REFERENCES

  1. Peyton JWR. Teaching and Learning in Medical Practice. 1998, Rickmansworth: Manticore Europe.
  2. Gagné RM. The Conditions of Learning. 1977, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  3. Race P, Brown S. The Lecturer’s Toolkit. 1998, London: Kogan Page.
  4. LaRochelle JS, Dong T, Durning SJ. Preclerkship assessment of clinical skills and clinical reasoning: the longitudinal impact on student performance. Mil Med. 2015;180(4 Suppl):43-6.https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-14-00566 PMid:25850125
  5. Sateesh Babu Arja, Sireesha Bala Arja, Samir Fatteh. The hybrid model of clinical skills teaching and the learning theories behind it. Journal of Advances in Medical Education and Professionalism (JAMP), 2019;7(3):111-117.
  6. Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills/ competence/performance. Academic Medicine 1990;65:563-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199009000-00045
    PMid:2400509
  7. Kirkpatrick DL. Evaluating training programmes: The four levels. 1998, Philadelphia: Berrett-Koehler.
  8. Kirkpatrick DL. Techniques for evaluation programs-Part 2: Learning. Journal of the American Society of Training Directors; 1959;13(12):21-6.
  9. Norcini,J, Burch V. Workplace-based assessment as an educational tool: AMEE Guide No. 3. Medical Teacher; 2007;29:855–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701775453  PMid:18158655

Download Full Text TOC