» Articles » PMID: 31438938

Exploring the Introduction of Entrustment Rating Scales in an Existing Objective Structured Clinical Examination

Overview
Journal BMC Med Educ
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Medical Education
Date 2019 Aug 24
PMID 31438938
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The concept of EPAs is increasingly applied to assess trainees' workplace performance by means of entrustment ratings. OSCEs assess performance in a simulated setting, and it is unclear whether entrustment ratings can be integrated into these exams. This study explores the introduction of an entrustment rating scale into an existing OSCE.

Methods: A 6-point entrustment scale was added to the standard ratings in an OSCE administered prior to students' final clerkship year in an undergraduate medical programme. Standard OSCE ratings assess clinical and communication skills. Assessors (n = 54) rated students' performance (n = 227) on a diverse set of clinical tasks and evaluated the addition of entrustment scales to OSCEs. Descriptive and inferential statistics were calculated for analyses.

Results: Student performance varied across the stations, as reflected in both the standard OSCE ratings and the added entrustment ratings. Students received generally high standard OSCE ratings, whereas entrustment ratings were more widely distributed. All students passed the OSCE, and only a small proportion of students did not reach the expected pass threshold of 60% on the standard ratings in the single stations. The proportion of students who did not reach the expected entrustment level in the respective stations was noticeably higher. Both the clinical and communication skill ratings were related to the entrustment rating in most OSCE stations. A majority of the assessors positively evaluated the addition of entrustment ratings into the OSCE.

Discussion: The findings provide an empirical basis to broaden our understanding of the potential use of entrustment ratings in existing OSCEs. They provide directions for future, more specific studies. The ratings might be used for formative feedback on students' readiness for workplace practice.

Citing Articles

Interrater reliability and agreement of the NEUMOBACT checklist about infection-prevention performance of intensive care nurses in simulation-based scenarios.

Raurell-Torreda M, Zaragoza-Garcia I, Arrogante O, Aliberch-Raurell A, Sanchez-Chillon F, Torralba-Melero M PLoS One. 2024; 19(12):e0313175.

PMID: 39739706 PMC: 11687784. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0313175.


Feedback in an Entrustment-Based Objective Structured Clinical Examination: Analysis of Content and Scoring Methods.

Nguyen-Tri I, Tremblay-Laroche D, Lavigne F, Tremblay M, Lafleur A J Grad Med Educ. 2024; 16(3):286-295.

PMID: 38882423 PMC: 11173042. DOI: 10.4300/JGME-D-23-00569.1.


Situational simulation teaching effectively improves dental students' non-operational clinical competency and objective structured clinical examination performance.

Wu J, Lin P, Lee K, Liu H, Lu P, Lee C BMC Med Educ. 2024; 24(1):533.

PMID: 38745156 PMC: 11092032. DOI: 10.1186/s12909-024-05546-4.


Relationship of Preceptor Ad-hoc Entrustment Decisions to Students' Clinical Skills Performance.

Basehore P, Wang S, Khan M MedEdPublish (2016). 2023; 9:61.

PMID: 38058906 PMC: 10697435. DOI: 10.15694/mep.2020.000061.1.


Do entrustment scales make a difference in the inter-rater reliability of the workplace-based assessment?.

Eltayar A, Aref S, Khalifa H, Hammad A Med Educ Online. 2022; 27(1):2053401.

PMID: 35311494 PMC: 8942514. DOI: 10.1080/10872981.2022.2053401.


References
1.
Hodges B, Regehr G, McNaughton N, Tiberius R, Hanson M . OSCE checklists do not capture increasing levels of expertise. Acad Med. 1999; 74(10):1129-34. DOI: 10.1097/00001888-199910000-00017. View

2.
Ten Cate O . Entrustability of professional activities and competency-based training. Med Educ. 2005; 39(12):1176-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02341.x. View

3.
Ten Cate O, Scheele F . Competency-based postgraduate training: can we bridge the gap between theory and clinical practice?. Acad Med. 2007; 82(6):542-7. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31805559c7. View

4.
Scheffer S, Muehlinghaus I, Froehmel A, Ortwein H . Assessing students' communication skills: validation of a global rating. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2007; 13(5):583-92. DOI: 10.1007/s10459-007-9074-2. View

5.
Crossley J, Jolly B . Making sense of work-based assessment: ask the right questions, in the right way, about the right things, of the right people. Med Educ. 2011; 46(1):28-37. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04166.x. View