Assessment of medical students' clinical performance using high-fidelity simulation: comparison of peer and instructor assessment.

BACKGROUND: High-fidelity simulators are highly useful in assessing clinical competency; they enable reliable and valid evaluation. Recently, the importance of peer assessment has been highlighted in healthcare education, and studies using peer assessment in healthcare, such as medicine, nursing, dentistry, and pharmacy, have examined the value of peer assessment. This study aimed to analyze inter-rater reliability between peers and instructors and examine differences in scores between peers and instructors in the assessment of high-fidelity-simulation-based clinical performance by medical students. METHODS: This study analyzed the results of two clinical performance assessments of 34 groups of fifth-year students at Ajou University School of Medicine in 2020. This study utilized a modified Queen's Simulation Assessment Tool to measure four categories: primary assessment, diagnostic actions, therapeutic actions, and communication. In order to estimate inter-rater reliability, this study calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient and used the Bland and Altman method to analyze agreement between raters. A t-test was conducted to analyze the differences in evaluation scores between colleagues and faculty members. Group differences in assessment scores between peers and instructors were analyzed using the independent t-test. RESULTS: Overall inter-rater reliability of clinical performance assessments was high. In addition, there were no significant differences in overall assessment scores between peers and instructors in the areas of primary assessment, diagnostic actions, therapeutic actions, and communication. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that peer assessment can be used as a reliable assessment method compared to instructor assessment when evaluating clinical competency using high-fidelity simulators. Efforts should be made to enable medical students to actively participate in the evaluation process as fellow assessors in high-fidelity-simulation-based assessment of clinical performance in situations similar to real clinical settings.

Comparison of Nasal Swabs, Nasopharyngeal Swabs, and Saliva Samples for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and other Respiratory Virus Infections.

Background: Nasal swabs and saliva samples are being considered alternatives to nasopharyngeal swabs (NPSs) for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2); however, few studies have compared the usefulness of nasal swabs, NPSs, and saliva samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory virus infections. We compared the positivity rates and concentrations of viruses detected in nasal swabs, NPSs, and saliva samples using cycle threshold (Ct) values from real-time PCR tests for respiratory viruses. Methods: In total, 236 samples (48 five-rub and 10 10-rub nasal swabs, 96 NPSs collected using two different products, 48 saliva swabs, and 34 undiluted saliva samples) from 48 patients (34 patients with SARS-CoV-2 and 14 with other respiratory virus infections) and 40 samples from eight healthy controls were obtained. The PCR positivity and Ct values were compared using Allplex Respiratory Panels 1/2/3 and Allplex SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR. Results: NPSs showed the lowest Ct values (indicating the highest virus concentrations); however, nasal and saliva samples yielded positive results for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses. The median Ct value for SARS-CoV-2 E gene PCR using nasal swab samples collected with 10 rubs was significantly different from that obtained using nasal swabs collected with five rubs (Ct=24.3 vs. 28.9; P=0.002), but not from that obtained using NPSs. Conclusions: Our results confirm that the NPS is the best sample type for detecting respiratory viruses, but nasal swabs and saliva samples can be alternatives to NPSs. Vigorously and sufficiently rubbed nasal swabs can provide SARS-CoV-2 concentrations similar to those obtained with NPSs.