Difference in Physiotherapy Students' Training and Objective Structured Clinical Exam Performance Before and During COVID-19.

Purpose: The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) and station examinations, in general, have been widely utilized in health professional programmes to evaluate students' clinical performance prior to advancing to a clinical placement. The COVID-19 pandemic impacted student preparation and implementation of our programme's OSCEs. The impact on changes in student OSCE performance due COVID-19 has not been well studied. This non-concurrent cohort study evaluated the difference before and during COVID-19 pandemic on Year 1 physiotherapy students' performances on an in-person OSCE by estimating the mean difference in cohort OSCE scores and safety occurrences. Methods: Two cohorts of MSc (PT) students were compared: Cohort A (not impacted by COVID-19) and Cohort B (impacted by COVID-19). Cohort scores were summarized as means and 95% CIs. Results: Overall OSCE scores for Cohort A and B were 77.9 and 81.9, respectively (d¯ = 4.0, 95% CI: 2.1, 5.8). Cohort B students were approximately 4 times more likely to demonstrate safety occurrences. Conclusion: The impact of COVID-19 did not adversely affect total OSCE scores; however, it did increase safety infractions.

Objectif: en général, les programmes pour les professionnels de la santé font largement appel à l'examen clinique objectif structuré (ECOS) et aux stations d'examen pour évaluer la performance clinique des étudiants avant leur passage au stage clinique. La pandémie de COVID-19 a nui à la préparation des étudiants et à la mise en œuvre des ECOS du programme de physiothérapie. Les effets sur les changements à la performance des étudiants à l'ECOS découlant de la COVID-19 n'ont pas été bien étudiés. La présente étude de cohorte non concomitante a permis d'évaluer la différence entre la performance des étudiants en première année de physiothérapie à un ECOS en personne avant et pendant la pandémie de COVID-19, d'après la différence moyenne des scores d'ECOS et des occurrences d'infractions aux règles de sécurité au sein des deux cohortes. Méthodologie: deux cohortes d'étudiants à la maîtrise en physiothérapie ont été comparées : la cohorte A (non touchée par la COVID-19) et B (touchée par la COVID-19). Les scores des cohortes ont été résumés sous forme de moyennes et d'IC à 95%. Résultats: les scores globaux de l'ECOS pour la cohorte A et la cohorte B s'élevaient à 77,9 et à 81,9, respectivement (d¯ = 4,0, IC à 95 % : 2,1, 5,8). Les étudiants de la cohorte B étaient environ quatre fois plus susceptibles de démontrer des occurrences d'infraction aux règles de sécurité. Conclusion: la COVID-19 n'a pas nui aux scores totaux de l'ECOS, mais les infractions aux règles de sécurité se sont accrues.

Predictors of Success in a Graduate, Entry-Level Professional Program: From Admissions to Graduation.

INTRODUCTION: Admission to health professional programs (HPPs) in Canada is competitive. The purpose of this study is to evaluate how factors identifiable by the admissions package may predict incidences of academic concerns in one physiotherapy program in Canada. REVIEW OF LITERATURE: Previous literature has identified many concepts that contribute to "academic success." Some HPPs have investigated if admissions criteria can predict students' academic performance. However, this has not been reported in physiotherapy programs in Canada. SUBJECTS: Study data included candidates' admissions' metrics and physiotherapy students' program data for 4 graduating cohorts, who were admitted from 2016 to 2019 inclusive (N = 256). METHODS: A retrospective, nonconcurrent cohort study was used to estimate the relationship between applicant's admissions data and students' program data pertaining to academic success. Data were summarized as frequencies for categorical variables and means for continuous variables. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and probabilities of an academic or professional concern for standard scores. Significance was set at P < .05. RESULTS: Cohorts participating in the multiple mini-interview (MMI) had an academic concern incidence of 14/131. The virtual MMI (VMMI) cohort had an incidence of 7/125. Students with higher MMI scores were less likely to have an academic concern (OR = 0.52 [95% CI: 0.30-0.89, P = .017]). Grade point average was not significantly associated with an academic concern when combined with either MMI or VMMI (Ps > 0.05). Admissions round offer was also significantly associated with an academic concern (OR = 2.48 [95% CI: 1.00-6.12, P = .049]), with those beyond the initial round of offers having increased risk of concerns. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Results of the study reflect the generally low event rates for incidences of academic concerns and the relative homogeneity and range restriction of independent variables across the 4 cohorts of students. HPP's reflection on current admissions processes and ability to identify opportunities for change in admission processes helps ensure that programs are selecting candidates who are likely to succeed.

The evaluation of change in pain intensity: a comparison of the P4 and single-item numeric pain rating scales.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observation study. OBJECTIVES: To compare the test-retest reliability and longitudinal validity (sensitivity to change) of 2 single-item numeric pain rating scales (NPRSs) with a 4-item pain intensity measure (P4). BACKGROUND: Pain is a frequent outcome measure for patients seen in physical therapy; however, the error associated with efficient pain measures, such as the single-item NPRS, is greater than for self-report measures of functional status. Initial evaluation of the P4 suggests that it is more reliable and sensitive to change than the NPRS. METHODS AND MEASURES: Two single-item NPRSs and the P4 were administered on 3 occasions--initial visit (n = 220), within 72 hours of baseline (n = 213), and 12 days following baseline assessment (n = 183)--to patients with musculoskeletal problems receiving physical therapy. Reliability was assessed using a type 2,1 intraclass correlation coefficient. Longitudinal validity was assessed by correlating the measures' change scores with a retrospective rating of change that included patients' and clinicians' perspectives. RESULTS: The test-retest reliability and longitudinal validity of the P4 were significantly greater (P1<.05) than both single-item NPRSs. Minimal detectable change of the P4 at the 90% confidence level was estimated to be a change of 22% of the scale range (9 points) compared to 27.3% (3 points) and 31.8% (3.5 points) for the 2-day NPRS and 24-hour NPRS, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest the P4 is more adept at assessing change in pain intensity than popular versions of single-item NPRSs.