Education, Teaching, and Quality Improvement |

In Situ Evaluation of a Critical Care Lecture Curriculum FREE TO VIEW

John O'Horo, MPH; Ronaldo Sevilla Berrios; Srikant Nannapanneni; Kianoush Kashani
Author and Funding Information

Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

Chest. 2014;146(4_MeetingAbstracts):489A. doi:10.1378/chest.1986229
Text Size: A A A
Published online


SESSION TITLE: Education and Teaching in Critical Care

SESSION TYPE: Original Investigation Slide

PRESENTED ON: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 at 07:30 AM - 08:30 AM

PURPOSE: Formal didactic curriculums have a critical place in providing a structured transfer of knowledge to residents and fellows. Feedback is essential to ensure lectures are engaging and relevant, but is often hampered by participation bias and recall bias when residents and fellows fill out evaluations days to weeks after the lecture. The aim of this systems improvement project was to develop a mechanism to provide rapid and reliable evaluation of core curriculum lectures to facilitate improvement in content and quality of the lectures.

METHODS: An evaluation device was developed using a mechanical 5-button cell counter was purchased and converted to an in-situ feedback device. Each button corresponds to an overall score of the lecture quality on a Likert scale . The device was placed near the exit to the lecture hall and attendees were encouraged to press the button indicating their evaluation as they left. The device was evaluated from August 2013 through October 2013, after which a survey was administered to all attendees of at one of the randomly chosen core curriculum lectures to assess the perceived utility of this in situ evaluation system.

RESULTS: Across 16 lectures, the device was used 115 times out of 276 total possible encounters (40%). Overall lecture ratings were high (median 5, interquartile range [IQR] 4-5). Feedback on specific lectures was used to modify the future curriculum by changing one lecture speaker and asking another to modify their content for next year. Sixty eight percent (13/19) of the attendees at the core curriculum lecture completed the survey. Survey results indicated a high overall satisfaction with lectures, concordant with the in situ evaluations (median 4, IQR 4-5). Most of the respondents (69%) indicated that they believed this was a good tool to evaluate lectures. However, 27% of learners indicated that they believed that the single score system may not carry enough information to change the content of core curriculum sessions.

CONCLUSIONS: This in situ real-time evaluation system appears to be a useful mechanism for providing timely evaluation of core curriculum lectures. Moreover, this low-tech solution provides a tool for helping didactic lectures adapt to the high-tech environment with very low cost.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: In situ evaluation is a feasible method for enhancing clinical education.

DISCLOSURE: The following authors have nothing to disclose: John OHoro, Ronaldo Sevilla Berrios, Srikant Nannapanneni, Kianoush Kashani

No Product/Research Disclosure Information




Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Find Similar Articles
CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543