Effectiveness of hybrid simulation training on medical student performance in whole-task consultation of cardiac patients: The ASSIMILATE EXCELLENCE randomized waitlist-controlled trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Assessment of comprehensive consultations in medicine, i.e. a complete history, physical examination, and differential diagnosis, is regarded as authentic tests of clinical competence; however, they have been shown to have low reliability and validity due to variability in the real patients used and subjective examiner grading. In the ASSIMILATE EXCELLENCE study, our aim was to assess the effect(s) of expert tuition with hybrid simulation using a simulated patient wearing a novel auscultation vest, i.e. a hybrid simulated patient, and repeated peer grading using scoring checklists on student learning, performance, and acumen in comprehensive consultations of patients with valvular heart disease. METHODS: ASSIMILATE EXCELLENCE was a randomized waitlist-controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment undertaken between February 2021 and November 2021. Students at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland in either the second or third year of the four-year graduate-entry medical degree programme were randomized to a hybrid simulation training or waitlist control group and undertook three consultation assessments of three different clinical presentations of valvular heart disease (cases: C1-C3) using hybrid simulation. Our primary outcome was the difference in total score between and within groups across time; a secondary outcome was any change in inter-rater reliability across time. Students self-reported their proficiency and confidence in comprehensive consultations using a pre- and post-study survey. RESULTS: Included were 68 students (age 27.6 ± 0.1 years; 74% women). Overall, total score was 39.6% (35.6, 44.9) in C1 and increased to 63.6% (56.7, 66.7) in C3 (P < .001). On intergroup analysis, a significant difference was observed between groups in C2 only (54.2 ± 7.1% vs. 45.6 ± 9.2%; P < .001), a finding that was mainly driven by a difference in physical examination score. On intragroup analysis, significant improvement in total score across time between cases was also observed. Intraclass correlation coefficients for each pair of assessors were excellent (0.885-0.996 [0.806, 0.998]) in all cases. Following participation, students' confidence in comprehensive consultation assessments improved, and they felt more prepared for their future careers. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid simulation-based training improves competence and confidence in medical students undertaking comprehensive consultation assessment of cardiac patients. In addition, weighted scoring checklists improve grading consistency, learning through peer assessment, and feedback. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05895799.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».