Feedback in an Entrustment-Based Objective Structured Clinical Examination: Analysis of Content and Scoring Methods.

Background The integration of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) within objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) has yielded a valuable avenue for delivering timely feedback to residents. However, concerns about feedback quality persist. Objective This study aimed to assess the quality and content alignment of verbal feedback provided by examiners during an entrustment-based OSCE. Methods We conducted a progress test OSCE for internal medicine residents in 2022, assessing 7 EPAs. The immediate 2-minute feedback provided by examiners was recorded and analyzed using the Quality of Assessment of Learning (QuAL) score. We also analyzed the degree of alignment with EPA learning objectives: competency milestones and task-specific abilities. In a randomized crossover experiment, we compared the impact of 2 scoring methods used to assess residents' clinical performance (3-point entrustability scales vs task-specific checklists) on feedback quality and alignment. Results Twenty-one examiners provided feedback to 67 residents. The feedback demonstrated high quality (mean QuAL score 4.3 of 5) and significant alignment with the learning objectives of the EPAs. On average, examiners addressed in their feedback 2.5 milestones (61%) and 1.2 task-specific abilities (46%). The scoring methods used had no significant impact on QuAL scores (95% CI -0.3, 0.1, P=.28), alignment with competency milestones (95% CI -0.4, 0.1, P=.13), or alignment with task-specific abilities (95% CI -0.3, 0.1, P=.29). Conclusions In our entrustment-based OSCE, examiners consistently offered valuable feedback aligned with intended learning outcomes. Notably, we explored high-quality feedback and alignment as separate dimensions, finding no significant impact from our 2 scoring methods on either aspect.

Three Weeks of Team-Based Leaning Do Not Overload Undergraduate Students.

CONTEXT: Team-based learning (TBL) is a flipped-classroom approach requiring students to study before class. Fully flipped curricula usually have fewer in-class hours. However, for practical reasons, several programs implement a few weeks of TBL without adjusting the semester timetable. Students fear that they will be overloaded by the individual and collaborative study hours needed to prepare for TBL. METHODS: We implemented three consecutive weeks of TBL in a 15-week lecture-based course on the renal system. In-class time and assessments were unchanged for all courses. Four hundred fifty-nine first-year undergraduate medical students (229 in 2018; 230 in 2019) were invited to complete weekly logs of their individual and collaborative study hours during lectures and TBL, along with questionnaires on cognitive load and perception of the course. Our program changed from A to E grading in 2018 to pass-fail grading in 2019. RESULTS: Participants (n = 324) spent a similar number of hours studying for TBL vs. lectures with a mean of 3.1 h/week. Collaborative study was minimal outside class (median 0.1 h/week). Results remained similar with pass-fail grading. If in-class time were reduced, 18% of participants said they would have used freed-up time to study for TBL. Studying for TBL generated similar extraneous cognitive load and lower intrinsic load compared to studying for lectures; students were less stressed, and maintained high levels of motivation and self-perceived learning. CONCLUSIONS: Three weeks of lectures were replaced by TBL without reducing in-class time. Students did not report overload in study hours or in cognitive load. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-021-01314-x.