Skip to main content
Advertisement
  • Neurology.org
  • Journals
    • Neurology
    • Clinical Practice
    • Genetics
    • Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
    • Education
  • Online Sections
    • Neurology Video Journal Club
    • Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Anti-racism, & Social Justice (IDEAS)
    • Innovations in Care Delivery
    • Practice Buzz
    • Practice Current
    • Residents & Fellows
    • Without Borders
  • Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Disputes & Debates
    • Health Disparities
    • Infographics
    • Null Hypothesis
    • Patient Pages
    • Topics A-Z
    • Translations
  • Podcast
  • CME
  • About
    • About the Journals
    • Contact Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Center

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Neurology.org
  • Journals
    • Neurology
    • Clinical Practice
    • Genetics
    • Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
    • Education
  • Online Sections
    • Neurology Video Journal Club
    • Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, Anti-racism, & Social Justice (IDEAS)
    • Innovations in Care Delivery
    • Practice Buzz
    • Practice Current
    • Residents & Fellows
    • Without Borders
  • Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Disputes & Debates
    • Health Disparities
    • Infographics
    • Null Hypothesis
    • Patient Pages
    • Topics A-Z
    • Translations
  • Podcast
  • CME
  • About
    • About the Journals
    • Contact Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Center
  • Home
  • Latest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Residents & Fellows

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Neurology
Home
The most widely read and highly cited peer-reviewed neurology journal
  • Subscribe
  • My Alerts
  • Log in
Site Logo
  • Home
  • Latest Articles
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Residents & Fellows

Share

April 19, 2022; 98 (16) Resident & Fellow Section

Training in Neurology: Objective Structured Clinical Examination Case to Teach and Model Feedback Skills in Neurology Residency

View ORCID ProfileJoshua J. LaRocque, View ORCID ProfileScott N. Grossman, Arielle M. Kurzweil, View ORCID ProfileAriane Lewis, Sondra Zabar, Laura Balcer, Steven L. Galetta, Cen Zhang
First published February 15, 2022, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000200223
Joshua J. LaRocque
From the Department of Neurology (J.J.L., S.G., A.M.K., A.L., L.B., S.L.G., C.Z.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Neurology and Department of Neurosurgery (A.L.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Medicine (S.Z.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Ophthalmology (L.B., S.L.G.), Department of Neurology, New York University Langone Medical Center; and Department of Population Health (L.B.), New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Joshua J. LaRocque
Scott N. Grossman
From the Department of Neurology (J.J.L., S.G., A.M.K., A.L., L.B., S.L.G., C.Z.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Neurology and Department of Neurosurgery (A.L.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Medicine (S.Z.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Ophthalmology (L.B., S.L.G.), Department of Neurology, New York University Langone Medical Center; and Department of Population Health (L.B.), New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Scott N. Grossman
Arielle M. Kurzweil
From the Department of Neurology (J.J.L., S.G., A.M.K., A.L., L.B., S.L.G., C.Z.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Neurology and Department of Neurosurgery (A.L.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Medicine (S.Z.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Ophthalmology (L.B., S.L.G.), Department of Neurology, New York University Langone Medical Center; and Department of Population Health (L.B.), New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ariane Lewis
From the Department of Neurology (J.J.L., S.G., A.M.K., A.L., L.B., S.L.G., C.Z.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Neurology and Department of Neurosurgery (A.L.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Medicine (S.Z.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Ophthalmology (L.B., S.L.G.), Department of Neurology, New York University Langone Medical Center; and Department of Population Health (L.B.), New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ariane Lewis
Sondra Zabar
From the Department of Neurology (J.J.L., S.G., A.M.K., A.L., L.B., S.L.G., C.Z.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Neurology and Department of Neurosurgery (A.L.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Medicine (S.Z.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Ophthalmology (L.B., S.L.G.), Department of Neurology, New York University Langone Medical Center; and Department of Population Health (L.B.), New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laura Balcer
From the Department of Neurology (J.J.L., S.G., A.M.K., A.L., L.B., S.L.G., C.Z.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Neurology and Department of Neurosurgery (A.L.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Medicine (S.Z.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Ophthalmology (L.B., S.L.G.), Department of Neurology, New York University Langone Medical Center; and Department of Population Health (L.B.), New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven L. Galetta
From the Department of Neurology (J.J.L., S.G., A.M.K., A.L., L.B., S.L.G., C.Z.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Neurology and Department of Neurosurgery (A.L.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Medicine (S.Z.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Ophthalmology (L.B., S.L.G.), Department of Neurology, New York University Langone Medical Center; and Department of Population Health (L.B.), New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cen Zhang
From the Department of Neurology (J.J.L., S.G., A.M.K., A.L., L.B., S.L.G., C.Z.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Neurology and Department of Neurosurgery (A.L.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Medicine (S.Z.), New York University Langone Medical Center; Department of Ophthalmology (L.B., S.L.G.), Department of Neurology, New York University Langone Medical Center; and Department of Population Health (L.B.), New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Full PDF
Citation
Training in Neurology: Objective Structured Clinical Examination Case to Teach and Model Feedback Skills in Neurology Residency
Joshua J. LaRocque, Scott N. Grossman, Arielle M. Kurzweil, Ariane Lewis, Sondra Zabar, Laura Balcer, Steven L. Galetta, Cen Zhang
Neurology Apr 2022, 98 (16) 684-689; DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000200223

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Permissions

Make Comment

See Comments

Downloads
348

Share

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Disclosures
Loading

Abstract

We describe an educational intervention for neurology residents aimed at developing feedback skills. An objective structured clinical examination case was designed to simulate the provision of feedback to a medical student. After the simulated case session, residents received structured, individualized feedback on their performance and then participated in a group discussion about feedback methods. Survey data were collected from the standardized medical student regarding residents' performance and from residents for assessments of their performance and of the Objective Structured Clinical Examination case. This article aims to describe this educational intervention and to demonstrate the feasibility of this approach for feedback skills development.

Introduction

Providing and receiving feedback is integral to education, particularly in academic medicine, a field that requires integration of knowledge, procedural expertise, and interpersonal skills.1 The value of feedback is amplified because both learners and experienced practitioners can be inaccurate when assessing their own performance.2,3 Provision of feedback, therefore, serves a critical role to facilitate improvement and growth.

Building on previous efforts to teach feedback skills,4,-,6 we aimed to use an experiential, simulation-based approach to develop feedback skills for neurology residents by designing an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) case at the New York Simulation center. This OSCE case permitted neurology residents to practice feedback communication skills in an immersive learning environment modeled on a common scenario encountered in residency. Previous research has identified that effective feedback should be specific and actionable, be delivered by a credible source, and emerge from a collaborative approach.1,4,7 Therefore, an inherently collaborative feedback method, the Ask-Tell-Ask method,6 was used to provide residents with immediate feedback after the OSCE case. This allowed residents to experientially learn the feedback delivery method and provided specific, actionable feedback on their communication skills.

Problem Statement/Objectives

OSCEs have been widely used in professional training, such as in the delivery of communication skills for end-of-life discussions8 and in practicing teaching skills.9,10 In this article, we show the feasibility of a feedback training initiative targeting neurology residents by describing the administration of the OSCE case, resident perceptions of the OSCE case, and standardized medical student (SMS) assessments of the residents' performance. The resident learners' objectives were as follows: (1) to develop communication skills by taking part in a simulated feedback scenario and then receiving individual feedback about their performance; and (2) to learn about the Ask-Tell-Ask method by receiving feedback delivered using this method and by subsequently receiving instruction on this approach during a group discussion session.

Description of Program

A team of neurology faculty worked with the New York Simulation Center for the Health Sciences to design an OSCE case in which a neurology resident (the learner) interacts with a SMS (an actor) in a mock feedback session. Overall, 58 residents from the Adult Neurology, combined Neurology-Psychiatry, and Pediatric Neurology residency programs at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine participated in this OSCE case across 3 academic years. Twenty-five residents were in their third year of neurology training (postgraduate year [PGY]4), and 33 were in their second year of neurology training (PGY3).

The resident learners received no formal training in feedback provision before the OSCE. They were instructed to provide feedback to the SMS, with the premise that they had been working together on the neurology wards for 1 week. The learner was advised that the SMS was enthusiastic, well-liked by patients, and frequently stayed after hours to help the team; however, the SMS was often late to rounds and gave disorganized presentations in which he read a resident's note aloud.

Before the OSCE, the single SMS was trained for 2 hours by a neurologist and simulation specialist to provide standardized responses to a variety of approaches (eAppendix available from Dryad, doi.org/10.5061/dryad.280gb5mpx). He was instructed to portray an eager medical student who felt overwhelmed by the amount of knowledge presented and had difficulty with time management, resulting in tardiness and disorganized notes. The SMS was instructed to provide reasons for each of these areas targeted for feedback and to appear mildly nervous though eager to improve. For example, if his tardiness was addressed, he would explain that he was late because he spent extra time with patients on prerounds. Last, he was told that if the learner gave him an opportunity to ask questions, he should inquire about learning strategies, time management skills, and how to give better presentations. The same scenario was used for all residents.

The encounter was observed by a neurology faculty member through a 1-way mirror. The learner had 10 minutes to provide feedback to the SMS, followed by 5 minutes for feedback from the faculty member and SMS. For this feedback session, the faculty member used the Ask-Tell-Ask method. In the Ask-Tell-Ask method, the learner is first asked to reflect on their performance, then given specific observations on performance, and finally asked to outline strategies for improvement.6 This promotes active discussion among both parties and encourages a collaborative experience. The postcase feedback accomplished 2 educational objectives: (1) providing specific, individual feedback and (2) teaching the Ask-Tell-Ask method by demonstrating its use. The SMS assessed the learner's performance with 28 items on a behaviorally anchored checklist using a “well done,” “partly done,” or “not done” scale and with an additional 3 items with a “not recommend,” “recommend with reservations,” “recommend,” or “highly recommend” scale. Last, the learners completed a survey to evaluate the OSCE case using a Likert scale of 1–5 (from least/worst to most/best) and free text responses. After all residents in the group completed the OSCE station, they participated in an informal group debriefing session to further discuss the Ask-Tell-Ask method.

Program Evaluation and Outcomes

Standardized Medical Student Assessment

The SMS checklist ratings revealed that overall, resident performances were rated highly (Table 1); a particularly high percentage of residents were rated “well done” at communicating concern or intention to help (86%), actively listening to the presentation (86%), and illustrating points with examples/analogies (96%). However, less than 50% of residents were rated “well done” for asking clarifying questions about the SMS's story (39%), checking on the SMS's understanding of the conversation (45%), collaborating with the SMS to develop a plan (40%), and summarizing the takeaway messages from the discussion (45%). When assessing residents' teaching ability, professionalism, and overall performance, the SMS rated more than 80% of residents as “recommend” or “highly recommend.”

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1

Standardized Medical Student Assessment of Resident Performance (N = 58)

Resident Self-Assessment

Residents rated themselves on preparedness (3.9/5) and performance self-assessment (3.8/5) (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2

Resident Surveys: Selected Free Responses and Survey Item Ratings (N = 58)

Resident Assessment of OSCE Case

Overall, residents reported that this OSCE case was useful and that they learned from it (Likert scale averages 4.7/5 and 4.4/5, respectively—Table 2). In written comments, residents described the scenario as challenging due to the difficulty of “delivering the flaws” to the SMS, that is, “breaking to an enthusiastic medical student that he is doing poorly,” (Table 2). They also suggested improvements, including shifting the OSCE case to earlier in training, and requested more feedback learning resources.

Lessons Learned and Future Directions

We have demonstrated that an OSCE case designed to develop feedback skills is feasible, provides individualized learner assessments and feedback, and is valued by residents. Providing feedback can be challenging and awkward, and a lack of experience may lead to fear about damaging the teacher/learner relationship or regarding hurting the feelings of the feedback recipient.1 There has been relatively little research analyzing different methods of teaching feedback skills; the optimal method remains uncertain. The approach we have described, comprising an immersive feedback scenario, immediate faculty feedback modeling the Ask-Tell-Ask method, and a subsequent group discussion session, was judged to be effective by residents. Residents found the entire OSCE, including this case scenario, to be so helpful that they requested for the session to be moved to an earlier stage of residency training; this has been performed.

There are limitations to the use of an OSCE for practicing delivery of feedback. A simulation center is not accessible to every program and can be costly. However, it is feasible to develop observed encounters in which residents practice feedback in the absence of a simulation center. In addition, some residents noted that the OSCE format introduces cognitive strains that do not exist in real-life feedback sessions, such as following the instructions for the encounter, recalling details of the scenario, and monitoring the passage of the allotted 10 minutes. In response to these concerns, the instructions for the OSCE were shortened and placed inside the simulation room in 2019 and 2020. In the future, we will also provide advance instructions in the Ask-Tell-Ask feedback method so that residents can approach the case with more preparation. All residents interacted with the same male SMS, so we are unable to comment on any potential impact of sex. Further studies are needed to assess the longitudinal effects of this OSCE case. The current approach used resident surveys; ideally, future studies would use both surveys of resident perspectives and objective evaluations of residents' ability to give feedback before and after the OSCE. This could provide more objective evidence for efficacy in feedback skill development. Last, it is important to note that a number of different factors contribute to good feedback, some of which cannot be addressed in an OSCE; these include factors extrinsic to the session itself, such as the learner's confidence in the feedback giver and the duration of direct observation before feedback.7

Using a simulated, structured encounter to train residents to provide feedback is a feasible, valued, and easily implemented method to teach, practice, improve, and assess the provision of feedback. This approach could serve as a model for neurology residency programs seeking to provide an opportunity to practice feedback skills in a safe environment while being observed and provided with their own feedback. Further research is needed to address whether this approach leads to better neurology resident feedback to learners in real time and may serve as a future direction for our study.

Study Funding

The authors report no targeted funding.

Disclosure

The authors report no disclosures relevant to the manuscript. Go to Neurology.org/N for full disclosures.

Acknowledgment

The authors thank the standardized patients and The New York Simulation Center for the Health Sciences (NYSIM), a Partnership of The City University of New York and NYU Langone Health, who provided material support of staff, space, and equipment for the educational initiative discussed in this publication.

Appendix Authors

Table

Footnotes

  • Go to Neurology.org/N for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.

  • © 2022 American Academy of Neurology

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Ende J
    . Feedback in clinical medical education. JAMA. 1983;250:777-781.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Colbert CY,
    2. Graham L,
    3. West C, et al.
    Teaching metacognitive skills: helping your physician trainees in the quest to know what they don't know. Am J Med. 2015;128(3):318-324.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    1. Davis Da,
    2. Mazmanian PE,
    3. Fordis M,
    4. Van Harrison R,
    5. Thorpe KE,
    6. Perrier L
    . Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared a systematic review. JAMA. 2006;296(9):1094-1102.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Henderson P,
    2. Ferguson-Smith AC,
    3. Johnson MH
    . Developing essential professional skills: a framework for teaching and learning about feedback. BMC Med Educ. 2005;5(1):11-16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Sargeant J,
    2. Armson H,
    3. Driessen E, et al.
    Evidence-informed facilitated feedback: the R2C2 feedback model. Mededportal Publ. 2016;12:1-6.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. French JC,
    2. Colbert CY,
    3. Pien LC,
    4. Dannefer EF,
    5. Taylor CA
    . Targeted feedback in the milestones era: utilization of the ask-tell-ask feedback model to promote reflection and self-assessment. J Surg Educ. 2015;72:e274-9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Beaulieu AM,
    2. Kim BS,
    3. Topor DR,
    4. Dickey CC
    . Seeing is believing: an exploration of what residents value when they receive feedback. Acad Psychiatry. 2019;43(5):507-511.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Nellis M,
    2. Howell J,
    3. Ching K,
    4. Bylund C
    . The use of simulation to improve resident communication and personal experience at end-of-life care. J Pediatr Intensive Care. 2016;06:091-097.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Morrison EH,
    2. Rucker L,
    3. Boker JR, et al
    . A pilot randomized, controlled trial of a longitudinal residents-as-teachers curriculum. Acad Med. 2003;78(7):722-729.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Julian K,
    2. Appelle N,
    3. O'Sullivan P,
    4. Morrison EH,
    5. Wamsley M
    . The impact of an objective structured teaching evaluation on faculty teaching skills. Teach Learn Med. 2012;24(1):3-7.
    OpenUrlPubMed

Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence

No comments have been published for this article.
Comment

REQUIREMENTS

If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org

Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.

If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.

Submission specifications:

  • Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
  • Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
  • Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
  • Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
  • Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.

More guidelines and information on Disputes & Debates

Compose Comment

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
NOTE: The first author must also be the corresponding author of the comment.
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Publishing Agreement
NOTE: All authors, besides the first/corresponding author, must complete a separate Publishing Agreement Form and provide via email to the editorial office before comments can be posted.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

You May Also be Interested in

Back to top
  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Problem Statement/Objectives
    • Description of Program
    • Program Evaluation and Outcomes
    • Lessons Learned and Future Directions
    • Study Funding
    • Disclosure
    • Acknowledgment
    • Appendix Authors
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Disclosures
Advertisement

Related Articles

  • Resident & Fellow Rounds: April 2022

Topics Discussed

  • All Education
  • Methods of education
  • Other Education

Alert Me

  • Alert me when eletters are published
Neurology: 99 (1)

Articles

  • Ahead of Print
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Popular Articles
  • Translations

About

  • About the Journals
  • Ethics Policies
  • Editors & Editorial Board
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise

Submit

  • Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Information for Reviewers
  • AAN Guidelines
  • Permissions

Subscribers

  • Subscribe
  • Activate a Subscription
  • Sign up for eAlerts
  • RSS Feed
Site Logo
  • Visit neurology Template on Facebook
  • Follow neurology Template on Twitter
  • Visit Neurology on YouTube
  • Neurology
  • Neurology: Clinical Practice
  • Neurology: Genetics
  • Neurology: Neuroimmunology & Neuroinflammation
  • Neurology: Education
  • AAN.com
  • AANnews
  • Continuum
  • Brain & Life
  • Neurology Today

Wolters Kluwer Logo

Neurology | Print ISSN:0028-3878
Online ISSN:1526-632X

© 2022 American Academy of Neurology

  • Privacy Policy
  • Feedback
  • Advertise