Difference in medical student performance in a standardized patient encounter between telemedicine and in-person environments

1Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Introduction: Telemedicine is an increasingly common form of healthcare delivery in the United States. It is unclear how there are differences in clinical performance in early learners between in-person and telemedicine encounters. Materials & Methods: The authors conducted a single-site retrospective cohort study of 241 second-year medical students to compare performance between in-person and telemedicine standardized patient (SP) encounters. One hundred and twenty medical students in the 2020 academic year participated in a telemedicine encounter, and 121 medical students in the 2022 academic year participated in an in-person encounter. SPs completed a multi-domain performance checklist following the encounter, and the authors performed statistical analyses to compare student performance between groups. Results: Students who completed in-person encounters had higher mean scores in overall performance (75.2 vs. 69.7, p < 0.001). They had higher scores in physical exam (83.3 vs. 50, p < 0.001) and interpersonal communication domains (95 vs. 85, p < 0.001) and lower scores in obtaining a history (73.3 vs. 80, p = 0.0025). There was no significant difference in assessment and plan scores (50 vs. 50, p = 0.96) or likelihood of appropriately promoting antibiotic stewardship (41.3% vs. 45.8%, p = 0.48). Conclusion: The authors identified significant differences in clinical performance between in-person and telemedicine SP encounters, indicating that educational needs may differ between clinical environments.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Murphy, E. M., Stein, A., Pahwa, R., McGuire, M., & Kumra, T. (2024). Difference in medical student performance in a standardized patient encounter between telemedicine and in-person environments. Medical Education Online, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2024.2388422

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free