Student mistakes and teacher reactions in bedside teaching.

We analyse interactions between teachers and students during video-recorded bedside teaching sessions in internal medicine, orthopaedics and neurology. Multiple raters used a high-inference categorical scheme on 36 sessions. Our research questions concern the types of student mistakes, clinical teachers' reactions to them and if they use different strategies to address different types of mistakes. We used a Poisson model and generalized mixed models to analyse these research questions. Most frequently, students made reproduction mistakes. Relatively high rates of rejection and a similar prevalence of low and high levels of elaboration and correction time for students were observed. Reproduction mistakes were associated with the highest level of rejection and the lowest level of elaboration. High levels of elaboration were observed when students were applying skills in new situations. Students were most often allowed time to correct when mistakes in the areas of analysis or application of skills and knowledge had occurred. There is a decrease in the rate of making mistakes for neurology and orthopaedics compared to internal medicine. Reproduction mistakes influence significantly the outcome feedback compared to application mistakes. Analytic and reproduction mistakes influence elaboration significantly compared to application mistakes. We found a significant effect whether the lecturer allows time for correction of reproduction mistakes compared to application mistakes. These results contribute to the understanding of interactive, patient-centred clinical teaching as well as student mistakes and how teachers are reacting to them. Our descriptive findings provide an empirical basis for clinical teachers to react to student mistakes in didactically fruitful ways.

Locating Medical Information during an Infodemic: Information Seeking Behavior and Strategies of Health-Care Workers in Germany.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a flood of-often contradictory-evidence. HCWs had to develop strategies to locate information that supported their work. We investigated the information-seeking of different HCW groups in Germany. METHODS: In December 2020, we conducted online surveys on COVID-19 information sources, strategies, assigned trustworthiness, and barriers-and in February 2021, on COVID-19 vaccination information sources. Results were analyzed descriptively; group comparisons were performed using χ2-tests. RESULTS: For general COVID-19-related medical information (413 participants), non-physicians most often selected official websites (57%), TV (57%), and e-mail/newsletters (46%) as preferred information sources-physicians chose official websites (63%), e-mail/newsletters (56%), and professional journals (55%). Non-physician HCWs used Facebook/YouTube more frequently. The main barriers were insufficient time and access issues. Non-physicians chose abstracts (66%), videos (45%), and webinars (40%) as preferred information strategy; physicians: overviews with algorithms (66%), abstracts (62%), webinars (48%). Information seeking on COVID-19 vaccination (2700 participants) was quite similar, however, with newspapers being more often used by non-physicians (63%) vs. physician HCWs (70%). CONCLUSION: Non-physician HCWs more often consulted public information sources. Employers/institutions should ensure the supply of professional, targeted COVID-19 information for different HCW groups.