Skip Navigation


Rheumatology Advance Access originally published online on April 13, 2006
Rheumatology 2006 45(11):1404-1408; doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kel126
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
45/11/1404    most recent
kel126v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Raj, N.
Right arrow Articles by O'Reilly, S. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Raj, N.
Right arrow Articles by O'Reilly, S. C.
Related Collections
Right arrow Education
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Undergraduate musculoskeletal examination teaching by trained patient educators—a comparison with doctor-led teaching

N. Raj, L. J. Badcock, G. A. Brown1, C. M. Deighton and S. C. O'Reilly

Rheumatology, Derbyshire Royal Infirmary, Derby, East Midlands and 1Postgraduate Dental and Medical Education School of Community and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, East Midlands, United Kingdom.

Correspondence to: Nicholas Raj. E-mail: nicholas.raj{at}nhs.net

Background. To compare the core hand and knee examination skills gained by undergraduates taught either by trained patient educators (PEs) or by doctors.

Methods. A total of 50 final year medical students were randomized to receive training from PEs or doctors. Group A were taught hand examination by a PE with rheumatoid arthritis, and knee examination by a PE with osteoarthritis. Group B was taught hand and knee examination by a consultant rheumatologist plus an untrained patient with appropriate signs. All students were taught an established core skills set in small group workshops. Students then undertook two validated objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) stations with two blinded assessors. Pre- and post-teaching questionnaires established the students’ self-reported levels of skills (SRS) and a student evaluation of teaching (SET). The study was analysed as an equivalence trial. A mean difference in OSCE scores of 10% was assumed to be of educational significance.

Results. Although the SET scores of both groups were high, the doctor-led group received higher scores. Aside from this, the two student groups did not differ significantly. There were no significant differences in mean hand OSCE (mean difference = 0.88, P = 0.28, 95% CI = –0.73 to 2.49) or knee OSCE (mean difference = 0.28, P = 0.7, 95% CI = –1.19 to 1.75) scores. Both the upper and lower confidence intervals for each mean difference fell within the 10% range (–2.8 to 2.8 for the hand, and –2.5 to 2.5 for the knee) and equivalence was assumed.

Conclusions. Adequately trained PEs can deliver clearly structured undergraduate skills, teaching with equivalent learning outcomes to those of rheumatology consultants. PEs are a valuable development to augment musculoskeletal education in the face of expanding student numbers.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Rheumatology (Oxford)Home page
K. Graham, J. M. Burke, and M. Field
Undergraduate rheumatology: can peer-assisted learning by medical students deliver equivalent training to that provided by specialist staff?
Rheumatology, May 1, 2008; 47(5): 652 - 655.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.