Does physical examination competence correlate with bedside diagnostic acumen? An observational study

Developing Physical Exam Skills in Residency: Comparing the Perspectives of Residents and Faculty About Values, Barriers, and Teaching Methods

BACKGROUND

The physical examination (PE) skills of residents are often not improved since medical school. Unfortunately, how residents learn PE is not well understood. There is a paucity of research on the factors involved and the differences between resident and faculty perspectives. The authors sought to determine resident and faculty perceptions about the value of PE, the major barriers to learning PE, and the most effective teaching methods.

METHODS

Based on a rigorous process of literature review and semi-structured interviews, the authors developed an online survey which was sent to 406 internal medicine residents and 93 faculty at 3 institutions. Residents and faculty answered questions about both their own opinions and about their perception of the other group's opinions.

RESULTS

About 283 residents (70%) and 61 faculty (66%) completed the survey. Both residents and faculty rated the importance of PE similarly. Residents rated being too busy, followed by a lack of feedback, as the most significant barriers to learning PE. Faculty rated a lack of feedback, followed by a lack of resident accountability, as the most significant barriers. Both groups rated the availability of abnormal findings as the least significant barrier. Both groups agreed that faculty demonstration at the bedside was the most effective teaching method.

CONCLUSION

This survey can serve as a needs assessment for educational interventions to improve the PE skills of residents by focusing on areas of agreement between residents and faculty, specifically faculty demonstration at the bedside combined with feedback about residents' skills.

A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003-2009

OBJECTIVES

This article reviews and critically evaluates historical and contemporary research on simulation-based medical education (SBME). It also presents and discusses 12 features and best practices of SBME that teachers should know in order to use medical simulation technology to maximum educational benefit.

METHODS

This qualitative synthesis of SBME research and scholarship was carried out in two stages. Firstly, we summarised the results of three SBME research reviews covering the years 1969-2003. Secondly, we performed a selective, critical review of SBME research and scholarship published during 2003-2009.

RESULTS

The historical and contemporary research synthesis is reported to inform the medical education community about 12 features and best practices of SBME: (i) feedback; (ii) deliberate practice; (iii) curriculum integration; (iv) outcome measurement; (v) simulation fidelity; (vi) skill acquisition and maintenance; (vii) mastery learning; (viii) transfer to practice; (ix) team training; (x) high-stakes testing; (xi) instructor training, and (xii) educational and professional context. Each of these is discussed in the light of available evidence. The scientific quality of contemporary SBME research is much improved compared with the historical record.

CONCLUSIONS

Development of and research into SBME have grown and matured over the past 40 years on substantive and methodological grounds. We believe the impact and educational utility of SBME are likely to increase in the future. More thematic programmes of research are needed. Simulation-based medical education is a complex service intervention that needs to be planned and practised with attention to organisational contexts.

Assessing cardiac physical examination skills using simulation technology and real patients: a comparison study

OBJECTIVE

High-stakes assessments of doctors' physical examination skills often employ standardised patients (SPs) who lack physical abnormalities. Simulation technology provides additional opportunities to assess these skills by mimicking physical abnormalities. The current study examined the relationship between internists' cardiac physical examination competence as assessed with simulation technology compared with that assessed with real patients (RPs).

METHODS

The cardiac physical examination skills and bedside diagnostic accuracy of 28 internists were assessed during an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). The OSCE included 3 modalities of cardiac patients: RPs with cardiac abnormalities; SPs combined with computer-based, audio-video simulations of auscultatory abnormalities, and a cardiac patient simulator (CPS) manikin. Four cardiac diagnoses and their associated cardiac findings were matched across modalities. At each station, 2 examiners independently rated a participant's physical examination technique and global clinical competence. Two investigators separately scored diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Inter-rater reliability between examiners for global ratings (GRs) ranged from 0.75-0.78 for the different modalities. Although there was no significant difference between participants' mean GRs for each modality, the correlations between participants' performances on each modality were low to modest: RP versus SP, r = 0.19; RP versus CPS, r = 0.22; SP versus CPS, r = 0.57 (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Methodological limitations included variability between modalities in the components contributing to examiners' GRs, a paucity of objective outcome measures and restricted case sampling. No modality provided a clear 'gold standard' for the assessment of cardiac physical examination competence. These limitations need to be addressed before determining the optimal patient modality for high-stakes assessment purposes.

Twelve tips for excellent physical examination teaching

BACKGROUND

Physical examination (PEx) skills are declining among medical trainees, yet many institutions are not teaching these systematically and effectively. Many variables contribute to effective teaching: teachers' confidence in their clinical skills, ability to demonstrate and assess these skills; availability of suitable patients; trainee attitude and fatigue; belief that institutions do not value clinical teachers. Finally, the relevance and significance of a systematic exam must be demonstrated or the teaching degenerates into a 'show-and-tell' exercise.

AIMS

This paper describes twelve practical teaching tips that can be used to promote high quality PEx teaching in 5 minutes or 45 minutes. TEACHING TIPS: (1) Diagnostic hypotheses should guide reflective exam; (2) Teachers with the best clinical skills should be recruited; (3) A longitudinal and systematic curriculum can tailor teaching to multiple learner levels (4) Integration of simulation and bedside teaching can maximise learning; (5) Bedside detective work and games make learning fun; (6) The 6-step approach to teach procedures can be adopted to teach PEx; (7) Clinical teaching at the bedside should be increased; (8) Linking basic sciences to clinical findings will demonstrate relevance; (9) Since assessment drives learning, clinical skills should be systematically assessed; (10) Staff development can target improvement of teachers' clinical skills for effective teaching; (11) Technology should be used to study utility of clinical signs; (12) Institutions should elevate the importance of clinical skills teaching and recognize and reward teachers.

CONCLUSIONS

PEx is important in patient-physician interactions, a valuable contributor to accurate clinical diagnosis and can be taught effectively using practical tips. To reverse the trend of deficient clinical skills, precision of clinical findings should be studied and exam manoeuvres that do not contribute to diagnosis discarded; institutions should value clinical skills teaching, appoint and fund core faculty to teach and provide staff development to improve teaching skills.