Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Feedback Methods in an Interprofessional Mock Paging Program

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Many medical schools offer a culminating internship readiness experience. Curricula focus on particular knowledge and skills critical to internship, such as answering urgent nursing pages. Studies have shown student performance improvement with mock paging education programs, but the role of feedback versus self-regulated practice has not been studied.

Design and Methods

The interprofessional mock paging program included 156 medical students enrolled in a 4th-year internship readiness course and 44 master’s level direct entry nursing students. Medical students were randomized to receive verbal feedback immediately after each of the three phone calls (intervention group) or delayed written feedback (control group) after the third phone call only. Specialty-specific case scenarios were developed and a single checklist for all scenarios was developed using the communication tool ISBAR. Medical students and nursing students had separate training sessions before the pages commenced. The nursing students administered the phone calls and evaluated the medical students by ISBAR checklist. An interrater reliability measure was obtained with physician observation of a selection of phone calls.

Results

After adjusting for the case effects (different case scenarios for different specialties), students showed no statistically significant differences on checklist scores for case 1 (first case, F = 1.491, df = 1, p = .224), but did show statistically significant differences on checklist scores for case 3 (final case, F = 12.238, df = 1, p = .001). Strong interrater reliability was found between the faculty physician and observed nursing students (ICC = .89).

Conclusions

Immediate feedback significantly improves student checklist scores with a mock paging program. This finding suggests that coaching with feedback may have advantages above self-regulated learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boehler ML, Schwind CJ, Markwell SJ, Minter RM. Mock pages are a valid construct for assessment of clinical decision making and interprofessional communication. Ann Surg. 2017;265(1):116–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Frischknecht AC, Boehler ML, Schwind CJ, Brunsvold ME, Gruppen LD, Brenner MJ, Hauge LS. How prepared are your interns to take calls? Results of a multi-institutional study of simulated pages to prepare medical students for surgery internship. Am J Surg. 2014;208:307–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schwind CJ, Boehler ML, Markwell SJ, Williams RG, Brenner MJ. Use of simulated pages to prepare medical students for internship and improve patient safety. Acad Med. 2011;86:77–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Heidemann LA, Kempner S, Walford E, Chippendale R, Fitzgerald JT, Morgan HK. Internal medicine paging curriculum to improve physician-nurse interprofessional communication: a single center pilot study. JIPC. 2020;2020:1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  5. van Houten-Schat MA, Berkhout JJ, van Dijk N, Endedijk MD, Jaarsma ADC, Diemers AD. Self-regulated learning in the clinical context: a systematic review. Med Educ. 2018;52(10):1008–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ericsson KA. Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med. 2004;79(10 Suppl):S70-81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zimmerman B. Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective. In: Boekaerts M, Paul RP, Zeidner M, editors. Handbook of self-regulation. 1st ed. San Diego (CA): Academic Press; 2000. p. 13–39.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Ericsson KA, Krampe RT, Tesch-Römer C. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev. 1993;100:363–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Foronda CL, Alhusen J, Budhathoki C, Lamb M, Tinsley K, MacWilliams B, et al. A mixed-methods, international, multisite study to develop and validate a measure of nurse-to-physician communication in simulation. Nurse Educ Perspec Nov-Dec. 2015;36(6):383–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Eva KW, Cunnington JPW, Reiter HI, Keane DR, Norman GR. How can I know what I don’t know? Poor self-assessment in a well defined domain. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2004;9:211–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M, Van Harrison R, Thorpe KE, Perrier L. Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review. JAMA. 2006;296:1094–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Virginia, 1215 Lee St, PO Box 800699, Charlottesville, VA, 22908, USA

    M. Kathryn Mutter

  2. Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA

    Kathryn Pedersen

  3. Practice & Innovation, Emory Healthcare, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Tim Cunningham

  4. Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Tim Cunningham

  5. University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    James R. Martindale

Authors
  1. M. Kathryn Mutter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathryn Pedersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tim Cunningham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James R. Martindale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by M. Kathryn Mutter, Kathryn Pederson, Jim Martindale, and Tim Cunningham. The first draft of the manuscript was written by M. Kathryn Mutter and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Kathryn Mutter.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

This research was reviewed and approved by the University of Virginia Institutional Review Board. This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mutter, M.K., Pedersen, K., Cunningham, T. et al. Feedback Methods in an Interprofessional Mock Paging Program. Med.Sci.Educ. 31, 2001–2005 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01445-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01445-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation