The student experience in Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs): phenomenological analysis

Background and purpose
The dominant psychometric discourse of OSCEs may lead to unexpected problems, such as a checklist-based student performance1 which under emphasises the clinical relationship with student and standardised patient (SP). Such encounters can be dehumanising for SPs2 and have implications for what students learn about relational skills through the assessment process. In this study we explore medical students’ experiences of undertaking OSCEs using a phenomenological frame.
Methodology
Interpretative phenomenological analysis is a form of qualitative methodology which has strong resonance with existentialism and focuses on the lived experience without significant reference to external political or discursive
forces.
Six 4th year undergraduate medical students from Queen’s University Belfast were recruited in December 2013. Maximum variation sampling was used. Students were interviewed by a researcher in the week prior to the
OSCE and then again in the week following the OSCE in Jan 2014. Interviews were minimally structured in order to be open to respondents, rather than adhering to a fixed topic guide, but focussed on participants’ experiences, thoughts and feelings about taking part in OSCEs. Interviews were audio-recorded and
transcribed. Students were also asked to complete a short diary entry in the days prior to the OSCEs and another immediately following. Diary entries were written, emailed or audio-recorded at student’s preference.
Results
Transcripts are currently being analysed by interpretative phenomenological analysis. Preliminary analysis has demonstrated the significance of students’ relationships within the OSCE triad (student, SP and examiner); the effect of the immediate examination environment; realism versus roleplay; students’ perceptions of the purpose of assessment; and coping mechanisms.
Full results will be available by the time of the conference.
Conclusion and Discussion
Understanding the student experience in OSCEs is a crucial step in understanding the complex construction of relationships within the OSCE triad. The focus in OSCEs is typically on standardisation and reliability, but in exploring social interactions we may refocus attention on their inherent potential for learning and effects on both students and patients.
References
1. Hodges B. Medical education and the maintenance of incompetence. Med Teach 2006;28(8):690-6
2. Johnston JL, Lundy G, McCullough M, Gormley GJ. The view from over there: reframing the OSCE through the experience of standardised patient
raters. Med Educ 2013;47(9):899-909

Student Life - The educational benefits of simulated practice

Simulation learning is used in several health disciplines. The Department of Health defines simulation as ‘any reproduction or approximation of a real event, process or set of conditions or problems’.

Do Cochrane summaries help student midwives understand the findings of Cochrane systematic reviews: the BRIEF randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Abstracts and plain language summaries (PLS) are often the first, and sometimes the only, point of contact between readers and systematic reviews. It is important to identify how these summaries are used and to know the impact of different elements, including the authors' conclusions. The trial aims to assess whether (a) the abstract or the PLS of a Cochrane Review is a better aid for midwifery students in assessing the evidence, (b) inclusion of authors' conclusions helps them and (c) there is an interaction between the type of summary and the presence or absence of the conclusions.

METHODS: Eight hundred thirteen midwifery students from nine universities in the UK and Ireland were recruited to this 2 × 2 factorial trial (abstract versus PLS, conclusions versus no conclusions). They were randomly allocated to one of four groups and asked to recall knowledge after reading one of four summary formats of two Cochrane Reviews, one with clear findings and one with uncertain findings. The primary outcome was the proportion of students who identified the appropriate statement to describe the main findings of the two reviews as assessed by an expert panel.

RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in correct response between the abstract and PLS groups in the clear finding example (abstract, 59.6 %; PLS, 64.2 %; risk difference 4.6 %; CI -0.2 to 11.3) or the uncertain finding example (42.7 %, 39.3 %, -3.4 %, -10.1 to 3.4). There was no significant difference between the conclusion and no conclusion groups in the example with clear findings (conclusions, 63.3 %; no conclusions, 60.5 %; 2.8 %; -3.9 to 9.5), but there was a significant difference in the example with uncertain findings (44.7 %; 37.3 %; 7.3 %; 0.6 to 14.1, p = 0.03). PLS without conclusions in the uncertain finding review had the lowest proportion of correct responses (32.5 %). Prior knowledge and belief predicted student response to the clear finding review, while years of midwifery education predicted response to the uncertain finding review.

CONCLUSIONS: Abstracts with and without conclusions generated similar student responses. PLS with conclusions gave similar results to abstracts with and without conclusions. Removing the conclusions from a PLS with uncertain findings led to more problems with interpretation.