Incorporating patient partner scores into high stakes assessment: an observational study into opinions and attitudes.

BACKGROUND: Volunteer patients (also known as patient partners (PPs)) play a vital role in undergraduate healthcare curricula. They frequently take part in objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE) and rate aspects of students' performance. However, the inclusion and weighting of PP marks varies, while attitudes and opinions regarding how (and if) they should contribute towards the pass/fail outcome are uncertain. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted to explore beliefs of PPs regarding inclusion of their scores in a high stakes undergraduate OSCE in a single UK medical school. All PPs delivering components of the local MBChB curriculum were asked to participate in the questionnaire study. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and framework analysis respectively. RESULTS: Fifty out of 160 (31% response rate) PPs completed the questionnaire; 70% had participated in a final year OSCE. Thirty (60%) felt their marks should be incorporated into a student's overall score, while 28% were uncertain. The main reasons for inclusion were recognition of the patient perspective (31%) and their ability to assess attitudes and professionalism (27%), while reasons against inclusion included lack of PP qualification/training (18%) and concerns relating to consistency (14%). The majority of PPs were uncertain what proportion of the total mark they should contribute, although many felt that 5-10% of the total score was reasonable. Most respondents (70%) felt that globally low PP scores should not result in an automatic fail and many (62%) acknowledged that prior to mark inclusion, further training was required. CONCLUSION: These data show that most respondents considered it reasonable to "formalise their expertise" by contributing marks in the overall assessment of students in a high stakes OSCE, although what proportion they believe this should represent was variable. Some expressed concerns that using marks towards progress decisions may alter PP response patterns. It would therefore seem reasonable to compare outcomes (i.e. pass/fail status) using historical data both incorporating and not incorporating PP marks to evaluate the effects of doing so. Further attention to existing PP training programmes is also required in order to provide clear instruction on how to globally rate students to ensure validity and consistency.

Sequential testing in a high stakes OSCE: Determining number of screening tests.

OBJECTIVE: The sequential objective structured clinical exam (OSCE) is a stand-alone variation of the traditional OSCE whereby all students sit a screening test. Those who pass this initial assessment undergo no further testing while weakly performing students sit an additional (sequential) test to determine their overall pass/fail status. Our aim was to determine outcomes of adopting a sequential OSCE approach using different numbers of screening stations and pass marks. METHOD: We carried out a retrospective, observational study of anonymised databases of two cohorts of student outcomes from the final OSCE examination at the University of Aberdeen Medical School. Data were accessed for students (n = 388) who sat the exam in the years 2013-2014. We used Stata simulate program to compare outcomes - in terms of sensitivity and specificity - across 5000 random selections of 6-14 OSCE stations using random selections of groups of 100 students (with different screening test pass marks) versus those obtained across 15 stations. RESULTS: Across 6-14 stations, the sensitivity was ≥87% in 2013 and ≥84% in 2014 while the specificity ranged from 60% to 100% in both years. Specificity generally increased as the number of screening stations increased (with concomitant narrowing of the 95% confidence interval), while sensitivity varied between 84 and 98%. Similar sensitivities and specificities were found with screening pass marks of +1, +2 and +3 standard errors of measurement (SEM). Eight stations as a screening test appeared to be a reasonable compromise in terms of high sensitivity (88-89%) and specificity (83-86%). CONCLUSION: This research extends current sequential OSCE literature using a novel and robust approach to identify the "ideal" in terms of number of screening stations and pass mark. We discuss the educational and resource implications of our findings and make recommendations for the use of the sequential OSCE in medical education.