The Development and Impact of Clinical Skills Handbooks in Undergraduate Medical Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Traditional teaching of clinical skills in medical school commonly entails didactic teaching followed by practice sessions with Standardized Patients (SPs) for particular skills, such as the cardiovascular exam. To address the need for briefer and more concise reference guides from standard textbooks and to consolidate skills expectations, the University of Ottawa developed clinical skills handbooks for students. The purpose of this study was to evaluate students’ use of these handbooks in the pre-clinical and clinical years. Methods: We distributed a survey to second, third, and fourth year medical students at the University of Ottawa from November 2016 to January 2017. The survey assessed how frequently students used the booklets and their opinions on the usefulness of the booklets as a learning tool. Results: There were 121 respondents of 492 students eligible for the survey. Of the respondents, 96.7% claimed to have used the booklets, and 75% claimed it was their primary resource for physical exam skills education. The majority of pre-clinical students used the booklets when learning a physical exam – 65% almost always, and 97% at least sometimes. The majority of clinical students (also referred to as clerkship students) used the booklets when reviewing a physical exam – 25% almost always, and 64% at least sometimes. Most students used the booklets when studying for OSCEs – 65% almost always, and 94% at least sometimes. Conclusions: Students at the University of Ottawa found the clinical skills handbooks to be a valuable resource during their medical training and for the majority, it was their most commonly used reference. These findings support the need for further development and use of these resources.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".