1. CLICK TO GO BACK TO KIOSK MENU
Videoconferencing for Third Year Medical Students’ Mid-Clerkship Feedback Sessions
CLICK TO GO BACK TO KIOSK MENU
Zhou S1, Mims T1, Dugan A1, Trott, T1, Sanderson W2, Bronner J1
1 Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
2 Skagit Valley Hospital Department of Emergency Medicine, Mt Vernon, WA
Material & Methods (Click)
Conclusion
The LCME required MCF for medical students on ≥ 4 week clerkships can successfully be conducted via web based programs.
Videoconference meetings improve convenience without jeopardizing meeting experience for the students.
Students find that the effectiveness of communication was best during traditional in-person meetings
Web based meeting methods provide a reasonable alternative option for MCF sessions for EM rotations.
Introduction (Click)
Results (Click)
Videoconference technology is increasingly employed in medical education settings.
The utility and student response to videoconference meetings for Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) required mid-clerkship feedback sessions (MCF) has not yet been documented.
Hypothesis:
Videoconferencing software has potential to improve feedback sessions (vMCF) compared to traditional in-person meetings (tMCF).
This may be especially true on with varying shift work schedules such as in Emergency Medicine.
74 third year medical students on mandatory 4 week EM rotation
Randomly assigned
web-based videoconference
in-person meeting
0-100 Likert scale survey
Overall MCF satisfaction was not significantly different
(MD): 2.8, 95% (CI): (-2.9, 8.4)
p=0.336
vMCF more convenient than tMCF
MD: 18.1, 95% CI: (6.0, 30.2)
p=0.004
tMCF effectiveness of communication higher than vMCF
MD: 14.9, 95% CI: (7.0, 22.9)
p<0.001
No significant difference in effectiveness of meeting for their learning or stress levels
MD: 2.3, 95% CI: (-7.4, 12.0), p=0.635
MD: 4.4, 95% CI: (-6.6, 15.4), p=0.424
Figure 1. Boxplots for the distribution of student ratings showing medians and 25th/75th percentiles. Statistical analysis was conducted using Mann-Whitney U tests.

2. Introduction
Videoconferencing software has been employed in numerous medical education settings:
- remote supervision of trainees
- AAMC SVI / conducting residency interviews
- traditional didactic lectures
- global Journal Club
Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) criteria Formative Assessment and Feedback requires clerkships ≥4 weeks conduct a mid-clerkship feedback (MCF) meeting to review student progress.
The utility and student response to videoconference meetings for LCME required MCFs has not yet been documented.
Advances in technology allow wide availability of videoconferencing and we hypothesize that its use has the potential to improve the meeting process between student and faculty (vMCF) compared to traditional in-person meetings (tMCF).
This may be especially useful on rotations that involve varying shiftwork schedules such as Emergency Medicine.
Figure 2. Screen capture of Google Hangouts platform
References:
Bertsch TF, Callas PW, Rubin A, Caputo MP, Ricci MA. (2007). Effectiveness of lectures
attended via interactive video conferencing versus in-person in preparing third-year internal medicine clerkship students for Clinical Practice Examinations (CPX). Teach Learn Med, 19(1), 4-8.
Cameron M, Ray R., Sabesan S. (2015). Remote supervision of medical training via videoconference in northern Australia: a qualitative study of the perspectives of supervisors and trainees. BMJ Open, 5(3), e
Daram SR, Wu R, Tang SJ. (2014). Interview from anywhere: feasibility and utility of web-based videoconference interviews in the gastroenterology fellowship selection process. Am J Gastroenterol, 109(2),
Stain SC, Mitchell M, Belue R, Mosley V, Wherry S, Adams CZ, Williams PC. (2005). Objective assessment of videoconferenced lectures in a surgical clerkship. Am J Surg, 189(1),
Xavier K, Shepherd L, Goldstein D. (2007). Clinical supervision and education via videoconference: a feasibility
project. J Telemed Telecare, 13(4),

3. Materials and Methods
74 third year medical students at UK enrolled from March 2017 thorugh September 2017
Standardized MCF format over 30 minutes
Randomly assigned:
web-based videoconference meeting via Google Hangouts
traditional in-person meeting
0-100 Likert scale survey after MCF:
overall meeting satisfaction
effectiveness of communication
helpfulness of meeting
stress levels
convenience
Demographics: gender, age, location prior to meeting, and meeting method preference

4. Results
Outcome Variable
Average Difference (95% CI),
In-person vs videoconference
P-value
Overall Experience
2.749
(-2.921, 8.419)
0.336
Effectiveness of Communication
14.945
(6.974, )
<0.001
Effectiveness of Meeting to Learning
2.310
(-7.379, )
0.635
Stress Levels During Meeting
4.425
(-6.558, )
0.424
Convenience of Meeting Location
( , )
0.004
Figure 1. Boxplots for the distribution of student ratings showing medians and 25th/75th percentiles. Statistical analysis was conducted using Mann-Whitney U tests.
Table 1. The effect of videoconference or in-person meeting on student scores assessed using linear regression analysis. N = 64.
Overall meeting satisfaction was not significantly different in students who met via videoconference compared to in-person
Mean Difference (MD): 2.8, 95%
Confidence Interval (CI): (-2.9, 8.4), p=0.336).
No significant difference observed in students’ rating of effectiveness of meeting for their learning or stress levels during their meeting
MD: 2.3, 95% CI: (-7.4, 12.0), p=0.635
MD: 4.4, 95% CI: (-6.6, 15.4), p=0.424, respectively
Students with in-person meetings rated effectiveness of communication higher than those in videoconference meetings
MD: 14.9, 95% CI: (7.0, 22.9), p<0.001
Students perceived the videoconference meeting location to be more convenient than in-person meeting
MD: 18.1, 95% CI: (6.0, 30.2), p=0.004).
Student demographics did not differ significantly between the two groups.