vOSCEs 2.0: Operationalising a universal low‐cost virtual OSCE

Abraham, Joseph; Foulds, Jessica L.; Lee, Jacqueline A; Sonnenberg, Lyn K

doi:10.1111/medu.14492

Cited by 5 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contingency plans for internet connectivity issues included hosting sessions prior to the examination to check the compatibility of stakeholders’ computers with the hosting platform, and ensuring participants had sufficient internet bandwidth [ 53 , 66 ]. Additionally, several studies reported recording students’ performance for retrospective marking in case internet cut off in the middle of a station and examiners were unable to mark the station in real time [ 37 , 51 , 53 , 71 ]. Trial runs of OSCEs were also held and were recommended for future examinations to identify potential problems [ 37 , 52 , 62 , 65 , 66 , 68 , 71 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Trial runs of OSCEs were also held and were recommended for future examinations to identify potential problems [ 37 , 52 , 62 , 65 , 66 , 68 , 71 ]. Additionally, authors found that using a hosting platform familiar to candidates through previous teaching reduced the chance of technological or compatibility problems arising [ 51 , 62 , 66 , 71 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five studies indicated future plans to hold online OSCEs [ 51 , 61 – 63 , 67 , 71 ]; two reported imminent plans to continue online OSCEs during the pandemic [ 61 , 66 ] and five indicated plans to use online OSCEs beyond the pandemic [ 37 , 51 , 62 , 63 , 71 ], noting that it could be a beneficial tool for students on remote placements [ 62 ] or that it saved time and resources compared to in-person examinations [ 37 , 63 ]. One study reported wanting to return to traditional face-to-face OSCEs when the pandemic permits [ 53 ] and two studies noted that while virtual clinical examinations held promise in the pandemic [ 60 , 69 ], it was important to recognise their limitations, especially in widening the technological deprivation gap between students [ 69 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several online resources and software were used, as shown in Table 4. In Zoom, this was done using the 'breakout room' function [45,51,55,56,60,63,66,69,71]; candidates started in a main Zoom room where they were briefed or given pre-encounter notes [62][63][64][65][66], subsequently they joined individual Zoom 'breakout rooms' where examiners and patients were prepositioned. Once the candidate-patient encounters were complete, candidates filled in their post encounter notes and were placed back into the main Zoom room, and the process repeated for the next case [60,63].…”

Section: Online Examinations What Was Done?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[51]; Boyle et al[53]; Conti et al[55]; Craig at el [56][58]; Hannon et al[61]; Ryan et al[66]; Setiawan et al[67]; Shaiba et al[69]; Stewart et al[71] …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Adaptations in clinical examinations of medical students in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Clinical examinations (assessments) are integral to ensuring that medical students can treat patients safely and effectively. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted traditional formats of clinical examinations. This prompted Medical Schools to adapt their approaches to conducting these examinations to make them suitable for delivery in the pandemic. This systematic review aims to identify the approaches that Medical Schools, internationally, adopted in adapting their clinical examinations of medical students in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Three databases and four key medical education journals were systematically searched up to 22 October 2021; a grey literature search was also undertaken. Two reviewers independently screened at title, abstract stage and full text stage against predefined eligibility criteria. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and involvement of senior authors. Risk of bias assessment was performed using an adapted version of a pre-existing risk of bias assessment tool for medical education developments. Results were summarised in a narrative synthesis. Results A total of 36 studies were included, which documented the approaches of 48 Medical Schools in 17 countries. Approaches were categorised into in-person clinical examinations (22 studies) or online clinical examinations (14 studies). Authors of studies reporting in-person clinical examinations described deploying enhanced infection control measures along with modified patient participation. Authors of studies reporting online clinical examinations described using online software to create online examination circuits. All authors reported that adapted examinations were feasible, scores were comparable to previous years’ student cohorts, and participant feedback was positive. Risk of bias assessment highlighted heterogeneity in reporting of the clinical examinations. Conclusions This review identified two broad approaches to adapting clinical examinations in the pandemic: in-person and online. Authors reported it was feasible to conduct clinical examinations in the pandemic where medical educators are given sufficient time and resources to carefully plan and introduce suitable adaptations. However, the risk of bias assessment identified few studies with high reporting quality, which highlights the need for a common framework for reporting of medical education developments to enhance reproducibility across wider contexts. Our review provides medical educators with the opportunity to reflect on past practises and facilitate the design and planning of future examinations.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Online Examinations What Was Done?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[51]; Boyle et al[53]; Conti et al[55]; Craig at el [56][58]; Hannon et al[61]; Ryan et al[66]; Setiawan et al[67]; Shaiba et al[69]; Stewart et al[71] …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations