Virginia Research Day 2021

Faculty Research Educational

Watson Edwards, BSN; Fred Rawlins, DO; Kim Gittings, BSN; Janella Looney, MSHI; Ryan Martin, HSOS; Ning Cheng, PhD; Sarah Astrab, OMS III, Nirav Patel, OMS III Corresponding author: wedwards@vcom.vt.edu 02 Comparing Peer-Evaluation Scores with Self-Evaluation Scores During a Cardiac Dysrhythmia Management Simualtion with Undergraduate Medical Students

Via College of Osteopathic Medicine – Virginia Campus

Manikin-based simulation assessment provides a mechanism to evaluate a student’s performance of applying knowledge to clinically relevant scenarios. The aim of the study was to compare evaluation responses among first-year medical students’ self- assessment with associated peer-assessments on management of two sets of scenarios presenting cardiac dysrhythmias. Objectively and consistently evaluating student performance places increased demand on faculty and staff. Our focus was to compare live peer-assessment scores with student self-assessment scores to determine positive correlations. A retrospective review of data on first-year osteopathic medical students enrolled in a clinical medicine cardiopulmonary course was evaluated. All participants, 167 students, in the study received similar instruction and treatments throughout the cardiopulmonary course. Simulation assessments

were conducted over three days. Simulations were conducted using Laerdal Manikin Simulators, LLEAP software, and BLINE Medical software. Four simulation rooms, all set up in a similar fashion, were used to conduct the assessments. Seven cardiac dysrhythmias were presented during instructional events. To provide randomization, two sets of cardiac dysrhythmia assessments were designed. Each student was randomly tested on one set of dysrhythmias with a 20-minute time limit. Testing days for simulation varied in length. Additionally, each simulation intern (peer-evaluator) was scheduled to a single room for finite amounts of time, with scheduled breaks, to avoid evaluator fatigue. For each test, students were evaluated live by a simulation intern (peer-evaluator) and were also directed to complete a self-evaluation using scenario video review. Students’ test scores were compared between self-evaluation and peer-evaluation by a t-test for each evaluation

test. A p-value <0.05 was used to indicate a difference with 95% confidence interval. The results revealed no statistical significance, in two scenario sets, in grading by either a peer or self-evaluation except for one cardiac dysrhythmia in Set 1 (Scenario, SIM | VF, p-values: 0.014). Peer evaluation scores and student self-evaluation scores were comparable and demonstrated self-grading is an accurate evaluation technique. As academic calendars and faculty demands increase, assessment scoring could be assigned to students to self-report performance and could also serve as a feedback mechanism. Further exploration of data should be completed to determine the discrepancy of one dysrhythmia scoring.

184