Peer assessment in medical communication skills training in programmatic assessment: A qualitative study examining faculty and student perceptions.

INTRODUCTION: Current literature recommends assessment of communication skills in medical education combining different settings and multiple observers. There is still a gap in understanding about whether and how peers assessment facilitates learning in communication skills training. METHODS: We designed a qualitative study using focus group interviews and thematic analysis, in a medical course in the Netherlands. We aimed to explore medical students' and teachers' experiences, perceptions, and perspectives about challenges and facilitating factors in PACST (Peer assessment in medical communication skills training). RESULTS: Most of the participants reported that peer feedback was a valuable experience when learning communication skills. The major challenges for the quality and credibility of PACST reported by the participants are the question whether peer feedback is critical enough for learning and the difficulty of actually engaging students in the assessment process. CONCLUSION: Teachers reviewing students' peer assessments may improve the quality and their credibility and the reviewed assessments can best be used for learning purposes. We suggest to pay sufficient attention to teachers' roles in PACST, ensuring a safe and trustworthy environment and additionally helping students to internalize the value of being vulnerable during the evaluation process.

Video-based feedback using real consultations for a formative assessment in communication skills.

BACKGROUND: Pre-recorded videotapes have become the standard approach when teaching clinical communication skills (CCS). Furthermore, video-based feedback (VF) has proven to be beneficial in formative assessments. However, VF in CCS with the use of pre-recorded videos from real-life settings is less commonly studied than the use of simulated patients. To explore: 1) perceptions about the potential benefits and challenges in this kind of VF; 2) differences in the CCC scores in first-year medical residents in primary care, before and after a communication program using VF in a curricular formative assessment. METHOD: We conducted a pre/post study with a control group. The intervention consisted of VF sessions regarding CCS, performed in a small group with peers and a facilitator. They reviewed clinical consultations pre-recorded in a primary care setting with real patients. Before and after the intervention, 54 medical residents performed two clinical examinations with simulated patients (SP), answered quantitative scales (Perception of Patient-Centeredness and Jefferson Empathy Scale), and semi-structured qualitative questionnaires. The performances were scored by SP (Perception of Patient-Centeredness and CARE scale) and by two blind raters (SPIKES protocol-based and CCOG-based scale). The quantitative data analysis employed repeated-measures ANOVA. The qualitative analysis used the Braun and Clarke framework for thematic analysis. RESULTS: The quantitative analyses did not reveal any significant differences in the sum scores of the questionnaires, except for the Jefferson Empathy Scale. In the qualitative questionnaires, the main potential benefits that emerged from the thematic analysis of the VF method were self-perception, peer-feedback, patient-centered approach, and incorporation of reflective practices. A challenging aspect that emerged from facilitators was the struggle to relate the VF with theoretical references and the resident's initial stress to record and watch oneself on video. CONCLUSION: VF taken from real-life settings seems to be associated with a significant increase in self-perceived empathy. The study of other quantitative outcomes related to this VF intervention needs larger sample sizes. VF with clinical patients from real healthcare settings appears to be an opportunity for a deeper level of self-assessment, peer-feedback, and reflective practices.