Reliability and Usefulness of Clinical Encounter Cards for a Third-Year Surgical Clerkship

Journal of Surgical Research

Volumn 140, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 139-148

  Richards, Melanie L ^a   Paukert, Judy L ^b   Downing, Steven M ^c   Bordage, Georges ^c  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^b HOUSTON METHODIST HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

clinical encounter cards (CECs); clinical evaluation; clinical performance; educational feedback

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL EDUCATION; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRONBACH ALPHA COEFFICIENT; FEMALE; HOSPITAL PATIENT; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL SCHOOL; MEDICAL STUDENT; PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; RESIDENT; SURGICAL APPROACH;

CLINICAL CLERKSHIP; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COMMUNICATION; FACULTY, MEDICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNSHIP AND RESIDENCY; KNOWLEDGE OF RESULTS (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEX FACTORS; STUDENTS, MEDICAL; SURGERY;

EID: 34247553259     PISSN: 00224804     EISSN: 10958673     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2006.11.002     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Gil D.H., Heins M., and Jones P.B. Perceptions of medical school faculty members and students on clinical clerkship feedback. J Med Educ 59 (1984) 856
2. Schum T.R., Krippendorf R.L., and Advanced Education Faculty Development Group. Feedback notes: a system for feedback to students and residents. Acad Med 75 (2000) 556
3. Hauer K.E. Enhancing feedback to students using the Mini-CEX (Clinical Evaluation Exercise). Acad Med 75 (2000) 524
4. Turnbull J., MacFadyen J., van Barneveld C., et al. Clinical work sampling: a new approach to the problem of in-training evaluation. J Gen Intern Med 15 (2000) 556
5. Hatala R., and Norman G.R. In-training evaluation during an internal medicine clerkship. Acad Med 74 Suppl 10 (1999) S118
6. Hatala R., and Norman G.R. Adapting the key features examination for a clinical clerkship. Med Educ 36 (2002) 160
7. James P.A., Kreiter C.D., Shipengrover J., et al. A generalizability study of a standardized rating form used to evaluate instructional quality in clinical ambulatory sites. Acad Med 76 Suppl 10 (2001) S33
8. Qu G., Huda W., and Belden C.J. Comparison of trained and untrained observers using subjective and objective measures of imaging performance. Acad Radiol 3 (1996) 31
9. Carney P.A., Pipas C.F., Eliassen M.S., et al. An encounter-based analysis of the nature of teaching and learning in a 3rd year medical school clerkship. Teach Learn Med 12 (2000) 21
10. Usatine R., and Scherger J. Tips for preceptors teaching medical students in managed care settings. Fam Med 28 (1996) 688
11. Bestvater D., Dunn E.V., Nelson W., et al. The effects of learners on waiting times and patient satisfaction in an ambulatory teaching practice. Fam Med 20 (1988) 39
12. Ferenchick G., Simpson D., Blackman J., et al. Strategies for efficient and effective teaching in the ambulatory care setting. Acad Med 72 (1997) 277
13. Heidenreich C., Lye P., Simpson D., et al. The search for effective and efficient ambulatory teaching method through the literature. Pediatrics 105 (2000) 231
14. Smith C.S., Francovich C., Gieselman J., et al. A broader theoretical model for feedback in ambulatory care. Adv Health Sci Educ 3 (1998) 133
15. Kolb D.A. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development (1984), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
16. Baumgartner W.A., Tseng E.E., and DeAngelis C.D. Training women surgeons and their academic advancement. Ann Thorac Surg 71 (2001) S22
17. O'Hara B.S., Maple S.A., Bogdewic S.P., et al. Gender and preceptor's feedback to students. Acad Med 75 (2000) 1030
18. Schum T.R., Krippendorf R.L., and Biernat K.A. Simple feedback notes enhance specificity of feedback to learners. Ambul Pediatr 3 (2003) 9