187
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
SHORT REPORT

Assessment of Factors That Students Perceive to Affect Their Virtual Learning of Clinical Skills for OSCE

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, & show all
Pages 707-712 | Received 02 Feb 2023, Accepted 25 May 2023, Published online: 07 Jul 2023
 

Abstract

Purpose

Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is a vital examination that must be passed to graduate as a qualified doctor. The delivery of OSCE teaching was changed to an online format to accommodate COVID-19 restrictions. Therefore, this study evaluates factors that students perceive to affect their virtual learning of clinical skills for OSCE.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, all medical students from across the world who attended “The Respiratory Station” session delivered by OSCEazy (a medical student organization providing free online medical education) in the academic year 2020–2021 received an online questionnaire about their perceptions of this learning opportunity. The survey was created on Google™ forms and consisted of 5-point Likert scales as well as free-text boxes.

Results

A total of 556 responses were received (mean age: 24, female: 76.6%). Most students agreed that online OSCE teaching offers more flexibility and convenience (median: 5, IQR: 4–5) but their likeliness to ask questions in either format was similar (median: 4, IQR: 3–5 vs median: 4, IQR: 3–4, p value: 0.94). The use of visual aids (median: 5, IQR: 4–5) and breakout rooms (median: 3, IQR: 2–4) were thought to enhance the quality of virtual OSCE teaching. The biggest concern about online teaching was access to a stable internet connection (69.1%).

Conclusion

The flexibility and convenience of virtual OSCE teaching enables the sharing of knowledge and skills to a wider audience and thus may be a very useful adjunct to face-to-face OSCE teaching in the future.

Disclosure

Movin Peramuna Gamage and Ravanth Baskaran are to be considered as co-first authors. The authors report no conflicts of interest and have no funding sources to declare.