has online self-assessment helped medical students’

engagement with clinico-pathological

conferences (CPCs)?

karen mattick – lkaren mattick – lecturer in clinical education ecturer in clinical education and academic lead in pathologyand academic lead in pathology

rob marshall - histopathologistrob marshall - histopathologist & senior clinical teacher

sally holden - eLearning support managersally holden - eLearning support manager

overview

background: Pathology @ PMS

CPCs: what is the problem?

feedback and results so far

discussion of next steps and ideas from you

Year 1 & 2Years 1 to 4 Year 5

Distributed institution

EMILY…..Peninsula Medical School’s “M” “L” “E”

Pathology learning @ PMS embedded throughout the curriculum PBL based Years 1 & 2

University based, Community Placements, Life sciences, Special Study Units

Years 3/4/5: Hospital based with academic study days CPCs in Years 3 and 4

online resources: e.g PathCAL, in-house developments, specific session supporting materials

Year 3 & 4: What is a CPC? hour long expert led tutorial where pathology is

integrated with clinical care i.e. real clinical cases

1 a week delivered to all students on a “Pathway” = 27 a year at all 3 localities

at least 1 pathologist from sub-specialty and a radiologist

original plan for students to collaborate on delivery

first cohort’s experiences: staff and students’

what was changed for next cohort

how is that going?

CPC session reality check

feedback from first year of CPCs

staff felt students not as well prepared as they could be often devoting large part of session to covering basics

students not always clear about what they needed to do in preparation for CPC sessions underlying science and pathology needed revising

Student & staff experience?

prior learning links and formative assessments added

students know what they should already know or revise before the session and are given opportunities to do so online

staff now feel secure in NOT having to go back and teach at lowest common denominator v. useful for staff to see what students have covered

New design OL support for CPCs

screenshots

27 CPCs within Year 3 pathway course

prior learning

resources

is all this working? data from annual monitoring questionnaire for Years 3 & 4

USAGE (UG students action group for EMILY)

informal feedback: discussion board comments and anecdotal staff and student comments

log file analysis & statistics: web usage and BB’s tracking

Crystal reports: reporting software

focused questionnaires to students and staff

QA data Response rate 61.4%

Very D

iss

Diss

atis

Neith

er

Satisfied

Very S

atis

Blan

k

To

tal

Averag

e ratin

g

 

Stan

dard

D

%C

om

plete

Access to computing resources 2 2 9 93 59 5 165 4.24 E 0.72 94.12

Appropriateness of electronic information sources to your course 5 7 33 75 38 12 158 3.85 E 0.95 85.88

Ease with which electronic resources can be accessed 9 19 26 67 35 14 156 3.64 G 1.13 83.53

E/Excellent = average of 3.75 or above, G/Good = 3.25/3.75

is all this working?

USAGE (UG students action group for EMILY) have made changes to improve CPC layout and information

about resources based on students’ suggestions

other methods have been delayed since all systems crashed temporarily but wiped out log files

interviews with staff and students limited due to above but interesting comments some of which may point the way forwards?

staff views students still not preparing much but those that do perform far

better some students use the online materials but very few the CAA self-

assessments

where staff have time to set more tasks and then chase individuals or small groups up on their work everyone gets far more from session particularly well done when locality sub dean leading the session!

some improvement this year over last but cohorts very different

staff views

if we could put formative questions in AMK format online after CPC session to check understanding (keep this in mind for later)

clinicians would like feedback on how their specialism is “performing”

if could improve CPC sessions could this then impact on AMK performance?

AMK formative assessment demo of AMK FA research project running now and results will be

published this year (Chris Ricketts and James Oldham) previous studies show that use of CAA does have a

positive effect on student learning students ARE using these quite widely as AMK is

hugely important to them watch this space!

e.g. of AMK question

student views too much to do to prepare for CPCs, low on priority list

would have found it useful if staff had reminded them of online tests availability and purpose (we obviously got our marketing strategy wrong!)

very good experiences when do prepare using online resources and tests“ I have a skeleton in my head to hang things on”

“ feel more engaged and able to ask more questions….even better when we know the clinician….some can be quite scary, particularly if I don’t know the answers”

student views when CPCs and other activities coincide it’s easier to see the

relevance since recent reading will have prepared for both

would find review tests after placements and CPCs very useful to check understanding & re-inforce learning would be more likely to use these

pre test results could be collated and given to clinicians to allow accurate pitching of delivery level

end of pathway (term) CPC tests would check retained knowledge

next steps?

review tests requests co-incides with staff views on wanting to check what students know in their area (remember the other slide?)

JISC study (Denise Whitelock’s session yesterday) CAA often helps check what students don’t know

we may need to reverse our approach? make the tests “compulsory” convert to AMK format and align with summative assessment areas

what do you think?

contact details… sally.holden@pms.ac.uk