Experience of introducing an electronic health records station in an objective structured clinical examination to evaluate medical students’ communication skills in Canada: a descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is limited literature related to the assessment of electronic medical record (EMR)-related competencies. To address this gap, this study explored the feasibility of an EMR objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) station to evaluate medical students’ communication skills by psychometric analyses and standardized patients’ (SPs) perspectives on EMR use in an OSCE. METHODS: An OSCE station that incorporated the use of an EMR was developed and pilot-tested in March 2020. Students’ communication skills were assessed by SPs and physician examiners. Students’ scores were compared between the EMR station and 9 other stations. A psychometric analysis, including item total correlation, was done. SPs participated in a post-OSCE focus group to discuss their perception of EMRs’ effect on communication. RESULTS: Ninety-nine 3rd-year medical students participated in a 10-station OSCE that included the use of the EMR station. The EMR station had an acceptable item total correlation (0.217). Students who leveraged graphical displays in counseling received higher OSCE station scores from the SPs (P=0.041). The thematic analysis of SPs’ perceptions of students’ EMR use from the focus group revealed the following domains of themes: technology, communication, case design, ownership of health information, and timing of EMR usage. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the feasibility of incorporating EMR in assessing learner communication skills in an OSCE. The EMR station had acceptable psychometric characteristics. Some medical students were able to efficiently use the EMRs as an aid in patient counseling. Teaching students how to be patient-centered even in the presence of technology may promote engagement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".