Feedback in formative OSCEs: comparison between direct observation and video-based formats.
Medical students at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland, have the opportunity to practice clinical skills with simulated patients during formative sessions in preparation for clerkships. These sessions are given in two formats: 1) direct observation of an encounter followed by verbal feedback (direct feedback) and 2) subsequent review of the videotaped encounter by both student and supervisor (video-based feedback). The aim of the study was to evaluate whether content and process of feedback differed between both formats.



In 2013, all second- and third-year medical students and clinical supervisors involved in formative sessions were asked to take part in the study. A sample of audiotaped feedback sessions involving supervisors who gave feedback in both formats were analyzed (content and process of the feedback) using a 21-item feedback scale.



Forty-eight audiotaped feedback sessions involving 12 supervisors were analyzed (2 direct and 2 video-based sessions per supervisor). When adjusted for the length of feedback, there were significant differences in terms of content and process between both formats; the number of communication skills and clinical reasoning items addressed were higher in the video-based format (11.29 vs. 7.71,p=0.002 and 3.71 vs. 2.04,p=0.010, respectively). Supervisors engaged students more actively during the video-based sessions than during direct feedback sessions (self-assessment: 4.00 vs. 3.17,p=0.007; active problem-solving: 3.92 vs. 3.42,p=0.009). Students made similar observations and tended to consider that the video feedback was more useful for improving some clinical skills.



Video-based feedback facilitates discussion of clinical reasoning, communication, and professionalism issues while at the same time actively engaging students. Different time and conceptual frameworks may explain observed differences. The choice of feedback format should depend on the educational goal.
Unit of Development and Research in Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.|Division of Primary Care Medicine, Department of Community Medicine, Primary Care and Emergencies, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland; noelle.junod@hcuge.ch.
Noëlle
N
Junod Perron
Service of General Internal Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Rehabilitation and Geriatric Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Martine
M
Louis-Simonet
Unit of Development and Research in Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Bernard
B
Cerutti
Unit of Primary Care Teaching and Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Eva
E
Pfarrwaller
Unit of Primary Care Teaching and Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Johanna
J
Sommer
Unit of Development and Research in Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.|Service of General Internal Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Rehabilitation and Geriatric Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
Mathieu
M
Nendaz
D000328:Adult; D002983:Clinical Competence; D003142:Communication; D004504:Education, Medical, Undergraduate / Q000379:methods*; D004521:Educational Measurement / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D000068156:Formative Feedback; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D019370:Observation; D013557:Switzerland; D014743:Videotape Recording
OSCEs; direct observation; feedback; formative; quality; video review