[Online examination course instead of classroom teaching: adaptation of medical student teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic]

Adaptations in clinical examinations of medical students in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Clinical examinations (assessments) are integral to ensuring that medical students can treat patients safely and effectively. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted traditional formats of clinical examinations. This prompted Medical Schools to adapt their approaches to conducting these examinations to make them suitable for delivery in the pandemic. This systematic review aims to identify the approaches that Medical Schools, internationally, adopted in adapting their clinical examinations of medical students in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Three databases and four key medical education journals were systematically searched up to 22 October 2021; a grey literature search was also undertaken. Two reviewers independently screened at title, abstract stage and full text stage against predefined eligibility criteria. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and involvement of senior authors. Risk of bias assessment was performed using an adapted version of a pre-existing risk of bias assessment tool for medical education developments. Results were summarised in a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

A total of 36 studies were included, which documented the approaches of 48 Medical Schools in 17 countries. Approaches were categorised into in-person clinical examinations (22 studies) or online clinical examinations (14 studies). Authors of studies reporting in-person clinical examinations described deploying enhanced infection control measures along with modified patient participation. Authors of studies reporting online clinical examinations described using online software to create online examination circuits. All authors reported that adapted examinations were feasible, scores were comparable to previous years' student cohorts, and participant feedback was positive. Risk of bias assessment highlighted heterogeneity in reporting of the clinical examinations.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified two broad approaches to adapting clinical examinations in the pandemic: in-person and online. Authors reported it was feasible to conduct clinical examinations in the pandemic where medical educators are given sufficient time and resources to carefully plan and introduce suitable adaptations. However, the risk of bias assessment identified few studies with high reporting quality, which highlights the need for a common framework for reporting of medical education developments to enhance reproducibility across wider contexts. Our review provides medical educators with the opportunity to reflect on past practises and facilitate the design and planning of future examinations.

Misjudgment of Skills in Clinical Examination Increases in Medical Students Due to a Shift to Exclusively Online Studies during the COVID-19 Pandemic

In medical school, practical capacity building is a central goal. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a shift to online teaching methods in university was mandated in many countries to reduce risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. This severely affected the teaching of psychomotor ability skills such as head and neck examination skills, resulting in a share of students that have only been taught such ENT-specific examination skills with online courses; our study aimed to measure performance and capacity of self-evaluation in these students. After completing a new extensive online Ear Nose Throat (ENT) examination course, we conducted a standardized clinical skills exam for nine different ENT examination items with 31 students. Using Likert scales, self-evaluation was based on questionnaires right before the clinical skills exam and objective evaluation during the exam was assessed following a standardized regime. Self-evaluation and objective evaluation were correlated. To compare the exclusive online teaching to traditional hands-on training, a historic cohort with 91 students was used. Objective examination performance after in-classroom or online teaching varied for single examination items while overall assessment remained comparable. Overall, self-evaluation did not differ significantly after online-only and in-classroom ENT skill teaching. Nevertheless, misjudgment of one’s skill level increased after online-only training compared to in-classroom teaching. Highest levels of overestimation were observed after online training in simple tasks. While gender and interest in ENT did not influence self-evaluation and misjudgment, higher age of participants was associated with an overestimation of skills. Medical students with online-only training during the COVID-19 pandemic achieved similar ENT examination skills to those with traditional on-campus training before the pandemic. Nevertheless, students with online-only training were more prone to misjudge their skills when they assessed their skills. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, current medical students and graduates might therefore lack individual specific psychomotor skills such as the ENT examination, underlining the importance of presence-based teaching.