Assessment is considered the single most significant determinant of learning that influences student learning behavior broadly. However, assessment in the context of PBL requires a constructive alignment between PBL objectives and assessment, which can be achieved through an integrative assessment approach. This study aimed to assess the performance of groups of students participating in PBL for poster preparation and presentation on criteria-referenced. This type of research is descriptive research. The methods used in collecting data are observation and questionnaires. The instrument used in this research is a questionnaire. The techniques used to analyze the data are descriptive, qualitative, and quantitative. The study results were that half of the students scored less than 50% in designing posters on the "subject content of each poster of the courses covered in PBL. Two groups scored more than 9 (out of ten), 6 groups more than 8 (out of ten), and 2 groups of 7 (out of ten). Seven groups scored 4.25 or more (out of 5), and three groups were between 3 and 4 (out of 5) for verbal poster presentations. The substandard student group performance on poster design was excellent on "subject content" and outstanding for verbal poster presentations.

INTRODUCTION Faculty training in understanding basics of assessment is among key tasks of medical school and faculty members. So, Bilawal Medical College Jamshoro, organized 1-day Training Workshop on Assessment in Medical Education.   As feedback is necessary for bringing improvement in conducting such workshops in future, so, feedback from faculty participants was taken and evaluated at New-World Kirkpatrick' Model Level-2. MATERIAL AND METHODS This cross-sectional study was conducted utilizing self-administered questionnaire having 4-parts: 1) Demographics; 2) Retro-pre-questionnaire on knowledge and understanding about basics of assessment at Likert-scale 1-4 (1=not-understand; 4=completely-understand);  3)  Retro-pre-questionnaire  on  participants’ confidence  on  Likert-scale  1-4  (1=Not-confident, 4=Extremely-confident); and 4) Open-ended questions on strengths and areas for improvement. Data was analyzed for frequency and central tendency and mean of items of before and after participation compared using paired t-test. Open-ended questions’ data was examined manually. RESULTS Significant improvement (p<0.001) in knowledge and understanding on items related to basics of assessment, such as difference between evaluation, assessment and research; fundamentals- why to assess, why assessment needed, what to assess, when to assess, how to assess; Miller’s Pyramid; curricular alignment; tools for assessment; blueprinting for assessment; developing blueprint; purpose of assessment; formative and summative assessment; utility, reliability and validity of tools; why multiple tools used for assessment; and criteria for effective assessment. The confidence of participants significantly enhanced (p<0.001) in developing blueprint and choosing tools for assessment. CONCLUSION Gain in participants knowledge and understanding related to basics of assessment was significant and participants confidence was significantly enhanced in developing blueprint and choosing tools.

Introduction: Multiple choice questions are commonly used tools for the written assessment of undergraduate health professions students. Faculty members need training for the development of valid and reliable multiple choice questions. For this purpose, Bilwal medical college organized one-day training workshop on developing multiple choice questions for newly recruited faculty members in March 2021. The main objective of the study was to assess the feedback of the participants on training workshop. Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study assessed the feedback of the participants of training workshop on developing multiple choice questions. The feedback questionnaire had four questions. First was on “rating training workshop on scale 1 to 10 (1=poor, 10=excellent) for usefulness, content, relevance, facilitation and overall”. Second was on confidence of the participants in developing MCQs after participation based on Likert scale 1 to 4 (1=not confident to 4=extremely confident). Third was on perceptions of the participants on strengths of training workshop. Lastly, fourth was on areas for improvement. The data was analyzed for central tendency using microsoft excel. Results:  Participants’ feedback rating about usefulness (8.82±1.51), content (8.12±1.69), relevance (8.35±1.46), facilitation (8.41±1.46) and overall (global) rating (8.35±1.41) was remarkable. Their confidence level after participation (3.41±0.51) was noticeable. Conclusions: The perceptions of the participants immediate after the training workshop i.e, their reaction was positive.

Objective: To share our experience of handling mass casualties at remote locations with an aim to help formulate a policy regarding future training of doctors. Study Design: Case series. Place and Duration of Study: Combined Military Hospital Thal Pakistan, from Jan 2016 to Sep 2018, including three months in Forward Treatment Center in operational areas. Methodology: The injuries due to war trauma were included in our study. Resource management and changes made to accommodate the influx of mass trauma that required damage control surgery were described. Results: A total of 16 casualties from two mass casualty incidents at two medical centers were included in our study. There was no difference in triage class (p=0.96). Splinter injury limbs were most common injury. One patient required damage control surgery done at Combined Miliary Hospital with most requiring hemostasis prior to transport (8 at Combined Military Hospital versus 3 at Forward Treatment center), p=0.346. Conclusion: Most of mass casualties at our hospital were minor injuries requiring immediate first aid. In addition, the damage control resuscitation and surgery done at these remote locations may have helped prevent mortality and morbidity in the more severely injured.