RESUMO
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 Åuvre 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.
RESUMO
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.
