Why Us? >>

  • - Open Access
  • - Peer-reviewed
  • - Rapid publication
  • - Lifetime hosting
  • - Free indexing service
  • - Free promotion service
  • - More citations
  • - Search engine friendly

Free SCIRP Newsletters>>

Add your e-mail address to receive free newsletters from SCIRP.

 

Contact Us >>

WhatsApp  +86 18163351462(WhatsApp)
   
Paper Publishing WeChat
Book Publishing WeChat
(or Email:book@scirp.org)

Article citations

More>>

Sawyer, T. et al. (2012). The Effectiveness of Video-Assisted Debriefing versus Oral Debriefing alone at Improving Neonatal Resuscitation Performance: A Randomized Trial. Simulation in Healthcarec, 7, 213-221.
https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e3182578eae

has been cited by the following article:

  • TITLE: Influence of Expert Video Feedback, Peer Video Feedback, Standard Video Feedback and Oral Feedback on Undergraduate Medical Students’ Performance of Basic Surgical Skills

    AUTHORS: Marieke Lehmann, Jasmina Sterz, Maria-Christina Stefanescu, Julian Zabel, Kenan Dennis Sakmen, Miriam Ruesseler

    KEYWORDS: Oral Feedback, Video Feedback, Expert Video Feedback, Undergraduate Medical Training, Surgery, Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Analysis

    JOURNAL NAME: Creative Education, Vol.9 No.8, June 29, 2018

    ABSTRACT: Purpose: In daily clinical practice, sterile working conditions, as well as patient safety and self-protection, are essential. Thus, these skills should be taught appropriately during undergraduate training. Receiving constructive feedback can significantly improve future performance. Furthermore, reviewing one’s performance using video tools is a useful approach. This study investigates the impact of different modes of video feedback on the acquisition of practical surgical skills, including wound management and a bedside test. Methods: Third-year medical students completed a structured training of practical skills as part of their mandatory surgery rotation. All students received the same practical skills training for performing wound management and a bedside test. However, for feedback regarding their performance, students were assigned to one of four study groups: expert video feedback (receiving feedback by an expert after reviewing the recorded performance), peer video feedback (receiving feedback by a fellow student after reviewing the recorded performance), standard video (giving feedback to a standardized video of the skill), or oral feedback (receiving feedback by an expert without a video record). Afterwards, students completed two 5-minute OSCE stations in which they were assessed with respect to their acquired competencies. Effects on long-term retention were measured at two further measurement points. Results: A total of 199 students were included in the study (48 for expert video feedback, 49 for peer video feedback, 52 for standard video feedback, and 50 for oral feedback). All teaching methods were feasible in the given timeframe of 210 minutes for each module. There were nearly no statistically significant differences among the groups with regard to the technical and non-technical ratings for the three measurement points. Conclusion: In the present study, video-assisted feedback in various forms offered no significant benefit over oral feedback alone during simulation-based patient encounters.