Assessment of Otoscopy: How Does Observation Compare to a Review of Clinical Evidence

Simon Jonathan Davis; Jon Viljar Norvik; Kristin Elisa Ruud Hansen; Ingrid Vognild

doi:10.22037/jme.v15i3.13866

Journal of Medical Education for Future Demands

Former Title: Journal of Medical Education | The Official Journal of School of Medical Education and Learning Technologies

Outlines

Abstract
References
Copyright

https://doi.org/10.22037/jme.v15i3.13866

Assessment of Otoscopy: How Does Observation Compare to a Review of Clinical Evidence

Author(s):

Simon Jonathan Davis^1,*,

Jon Viljar Norvik²,

Kristin Elisa Ruud Hansen³,

Ingrid Vognild⁴

1MBChB, OSCE director & general practitioner, UiT, Norway

2Department of Medical Biology, UiT, Norway

3OSCE administrator & civil engineer (biotechnology), UiT, Norway

4Radiologist in training, Department of Radiology, UNN hospital, Tromsø, Norway

Journal of Medical Education for Future Demands:Vol. 15, issue 3; e105526

Published online:Jan 11, 2017

Article type:Research Article

Received:Sep 19, 2016

Accepted:Nov 08, 2016

How to Cite:Simon Jonathan DavisJon Viljar NorvikKristin Elisa Ruud HansenIngrid VognildAssessment of Otoscopy: How Does Observation Compare to a Review of Clinical Evidence.J Med Edu.15(3):e105526.https://doi.org/10.22037/jme.v15i3.13866.

Abstract

Background and Purpose: To investigate how much the method of observation agrees with a standardised review of evidence of clinical examination, for the assessment of clinical otoscopic competence.Methods: 65 medical students took part in an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) station using patients with real pathology. Examiners assessed otoscopic competency in tympanic membrane examination solely by distant observation. An external examiner later reviewed candidates’ documented findings on a schematic drawing of the tympanic membranes. Observed agreement of the two methods and Cohen’s kappa coefficient were calculated.Results: Mean otoscopy scores for examiner 1 and examiner 2 were 67.7% and 29.4% respectively. There was a significant difference using the Mann-Whitney U-test. OSCE observation declared 47.7% of candidates (31/65) to be clinically competent. Drawing-based analysis however deemed only 4.6% (3/65) to have achieved this competency. This represented more than a ten-fold overestimation of clinical competency by OSCE assessment. Observed agreement between assessment methods was 59.6%. Cohen’s kappa coefficient was 0.1.Conclusions: OSCE observational assessment of otoscopic clinical competency correlates poorly with review of evidence from clinical examination. If evidence review is acceptable as a better marker for competency, observation should not to be used alone in OSCE assessment. Evidence review itself is vulnerable to candidate guesswork. OSCE could possibly explore candidate demonstration with explanation of findings, by use of digital otoscopy offering a shared view of the tympanic membranes, as an improved standard of clinical competency assessment.

Keywords

Fulltext

The body of the article can be found in the PDF file.

References

1.
References are available in the PDF file.

comments

Crossmark

Checking

Share on

Comments

Number of Comments:0

Cited by

CrossRef 0

Metrics

Get Permission (article level)

Purchasing Reprints

Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) handles bulk orders for article reprints for Brieflands. To place an order for reprints, please click here ( https://www.copyright.com/landing/reprintsinquiryform/ ). Clicking this link will bring you to a CCC request form where you can provide the details of your order. Once complete, please click the ‘Submit Request’ button and CCC’s Reprints Services team will generate a quote for your review.

Search Relations

Author(s):

Simon Jonathan Davis:[PubMed][Scholar]
Jon Viljar Norvik:[PubMed][Scholar]
Kristin Elisa Ruud Hansen:[PubMed][Scholar]
Ingrid Vognild:[PubMed][Scholar]