Development and implementation of a mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (mini-CEX) program to assess the clinical competencies of internal medicine residents: from faculty development to curriculum evaluation

BMC Medical Education

Han-Pin Kuo²  Chih-Wei Yang³  Maw-Sen Liu¹  Shou-Jin Pu¹  Kuo-Chen Liao¹ 

[1] Division of General Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University, College of Medicine, 5 Fusing street, Gueishan, 333, Taoyuan, Taiwan;Division of Thoracic Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University, College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan;Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University, College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan

关键词: Faculty development;    Mini clinical evaluation exercise;    Mini-CEX;   

Others  :  1138993
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-13-31

 received in 2012-05-26, accepted in 2013-02-20,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The mini-CEX is a valid and reliable method to assess the clinical competencies of trainees. Its data could be useful for educators to redesign curriculum as a process of quality improvement. The aim of this study was to evaluate a mini-CEX assessment program in our internal medicine residency training. We investigated the impact of mini-CEX workshops as a faculty development program on the acquisition of cognitive knowledge and the difference of practice behaviors among faculty members used the mini-CEX to assess residents’ performance at work.

Methods

We designed an observational, two-phase study. In the faculty development program, we started a mini-CEX workshop for trainers in 2010, and the short-term outcome of the program was evaluated by comparing the pretest and posttest results to demonstrate the improvement in cognitive knowledge on mini-CEX. From September 2010 to August 2011, we implemented a monthly mini-CEX assessment program in our internal medicine residency training. The data of these mini-CEX assessment forms were collected and analyzed.

Results

In the group of 49 mini-CEX workshop attendees, there was a statistically significant improvement in cognitive knowledge by comparing the pretest and posttest results (67.35 ± 15.25 versus 81.22 ± 10.34, p < 0.001). Among the 863 clinical encounters of mini-CEX, which involved 97 residents and 139 evaluators, 229 (26.5%), 326 (37.8%), and 308 (35.7%) evaluations were completed by the first-year, second-year, and third- year residents separately. We found a statistically significant interaction between level of training and score in dimensions of mini-CEX. The scores in all dimensions measured were better for senior residents. Participation in mini-CEX workshops as a faculty development program strengthened the adherence of trainers to the principles of mini-CEX as a formative assessment in regard to provision of feedback. However, a deficiency in engaging residents’ reflection was found.

Conclusions

Faculty development is a prerequisite to train evaluators in order to implement a successful mini-CEX assessment program. We demonstrated the effectiveness of our mini-CEX workshops in terms of knowledge acquisition and enhancement of giving feedback when the faculty members used the tool. Further programs on providing effective feedback should be conducted to increase the impact of the mini-CEX as a formative assessment.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Liao et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Frank JR, Danoff D: The CanMEDS initiative: implementing an outcomes-based framework of physician competencies. Med Teach 2007, 29(7):642-647.
• [2]Harden RM: Outcome-Based Education: the future is today. Med Teach 2007, 29(7):625-629.
• [3]Swing SR: The ACGME outcome project: retrospective and prospective. Med Teach 2007, 29(7):648-654.
• [4]Kogan JR, Holmboe ES, Hauer KE: Tools for direct observation and assessment of clinical skills of medical trainees: a systematic review. JAMA 2009, 302(12):1316-1326.
• [5]Pelgrim EA, Kramer AW, Mokkink HG, van den Elsen L, Grol RP, van der Vleuten CP: In-training assessment using direct observation of single-patient encounters: a literature review. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2011, 16(1):131-142.
• [6]Gozu A, Windish DM, Knight AM, Thomas PA, Bass EB, Kern DE: Long term impact of a longitudinal faculty program in curriculum development: A case control study. J Gen Intern Med 2006, 21:81-81.
• [7]Gozu A, Windish DM, Knight AM, Thomas PA, Kolodner K, Bass EB, Sisson SD, Kern DE: Long-term follow-up of a 10-month programme in curriculum development for medical educators: a cohort study. Med Educ 2008, 42(7):684-692.
• [8]Norcini JJ, Blank LL, Arnold GK, Kimball HR: The mini-CEX (clinical evaluation exercise): a preliminary investigation. Ann Intern Med 1995, 123(10):795-799.
• [9]Norcini JJ, Blank LL, Duffy FD, Fortna GS: The mini-CEX: a method for assessing clinical skills. Ann Intern Med 2003, 138(6):476-481.
• [10]Kogan JR, Bellini LM, Shea JA: Implementation of the mini-CEX to evaluate medical students’ clinical skills. Acad Med 2002, 77(11):1156-1157.
• [11]Weller JM, Jolly B, Misur MP, Merry AF, Jones A, Crossley JG, Pedersen K, Smith K: Mini-clinical evaluation exercise in anaesthesia training. Br J Anaesth 2009, 102(5):633-641.
• [12]Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Mandrekar JN, Pankratz VS: Internal structure of mini-CEX scores for internal medicine residents: factor analysis and generalizability. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2010, 15(5):633-645.
• [13]Singh T, Sharma M: Mini-clinical examination (CEX) as a tool for formative assessment. Natl Med J India 2010, 23(2):100-102.
• [14]Sidhu RS, Hatala R, Barron S, Broudo M, Pachev G, Page G: Reliability and acceptance of the mini-clinical evaluation exercise as a performance assessment of practicing physicians. Acad Med 2009, 84(10 Suppl):S113-S115.
• [15]Lee FY, Yang YY, Hsu HC, Chuang CL, Lee WS, Chang CC, Huang CC, Chen JW, Cheng HM, Jap TS: Clinical instructors’ perception of a faculty development programme promoting postgraduate year-1 (PGY1) residents’ ACGME six core competencies: a 2-year study. BMJ open 2011, 1(2):e000200.
• [16]Kogan JR, Conforti LN, Bernabeo EC, Durning SJ, Hauer KE, Holmboe ES: Faculty staff perceptions of feedback to residents after direct observation of clinical skills. Med Educ 2012, 46(2):201-215.
• [17]Holmboe ES, Yepes M, Williams F, Huot SJ: Feedback and the mini clinical evaluation exercise. J Gen Intern Med 2004, 19(5 Pt 2):558-561.
• [18]Cole KA, Barker LR, Kolodner K, Williamson P, Wright SM, Kern DE: Faculty development in teaching skills: an intensive longitudinal model. Acad Med 2004, 79(5):469-480.
• [19]Steinert Y, Mann K, Centeno A, Dolmans D, Spencer J, Gelula M, Prideaux D: A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education: BEME Guide No. 8. Med Teach 2006, 28(6):497-526.
• [20]Skeff KM, Stratos GA, Bergen MR, Regula DP Jr: A pilot study of faculty development for basic science teachers. Acad Med 1998, 73(6):701-704.
• [21]Archer JC: State of the science in health professional education: effective feedback. Med Educ 2010, 44(1):101-108.
• [22]Weller JM, Jones A, Merry AF, Jolly B, Saunders D: Investigation of trainee and specialist reactions to the mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise in anaesthesia: implications for implementation. Br J Anaesth 2009, 103(4):524-530.
• [23]Malhotra S, Hatala R, Courneya CA: Internal medicine residents’ perceptions of the Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise. Med Teach 2008, 30(4):414-419.
• [24]Durning SJ, Cation LJ, Markert RJ, Pangaro LN: Assessing the reliability and validity of the mini-clinical evaluation exercise for internal medicine residency training. Acad Med 2002, 77(9):900-904.
• [25]Epstein RM, Hundert EM: Defining and assessing professional competence. JAMA 2002, 287(2):226-235.
• [26]Branch WT Jr: Use of critical incident reports in medical education A perspective. J general Intern Med 2005, 20(11):1063-1067.
• [27]Cruess R, McIlroy JH, Cruess S, Ginsburg S, Steinert Y: The Professionalism Mini-evaluation Exercise: a preliminary investigation. Acad Med 2006, 81(10 Suppl):S74-S78.
• [28]Stern DT, Papadakis M: The developing physician–becoming a professional. N Engl J Med 2006, 355(17):1794-1799.
• [29]Fernando N, Cleland J, McKenzie H, Cassar K: Identifying the factors that determine feedback given to undergraduate medical students following formative mini-CEX assessments. Med Educ 2008, 42(1):89-95.