Métodos de evaluación de competencias clínicas en Internados Médicos: revisión de alcance de prácticas actuales y tendencias emergentes.
Resumen
El objetivo de esta revisión de alcance fue mapear los métodos utilizados para evaluar lacompetencia clínica durante los internados médicos e identificar tendencias emergentes asociadas ala incorporación de tecnologías educativas. Se realizó una búsqueda en PubMed, Web of Science yScopus (octubre de 2024), incluyendo estudios publicados en los últimos 10 años que evaluaran lacompetencia clínica mediante métodos prácticos apoyados por tecnología. Se seleccionaron 26estudios que incluyeron a 5.749 estudiantes de medicina en diversos contextos clínicos. Losmétodos identificados abarcaron Exámenes Clínicos Objetivos y Estructurados (OSCE), Mini-CEX yotras Evaluaciones Basadas en el Entorno Clínico, incluyendo evaluaciones basadas en ActividadesProfesionales Confiables (EPA). Las tecnologías emergentes integradas fueron simulación de altafidelidad, realidad virtual, telemedicina y sistemas digitales de retroalimentación. En conjunto, losestudios reportaron mejoras en habilidades clínicas, razonamiento diagnóstico, comunicación yautoconfianza, especialmente cuando se utilizó retroalimentación inmediata en evaluacionesformativas. Persisten desafíos relacionados con la variabilidad entre evaluadores, la heterogeneidadmetodológica y la necesidad de capacitación docente y recursos tecnológicos adecuados. Enconclusión, los hallazgos evidencian una transición hacia modelos evaluativos propios de laeducación médica basada en competencias, destacando la importancia de la observación directa, laretroalimentación estructurada y el uso estratégico de tecnologías. Se recomienda fortalecer laestandarización de prácticas evaluativas y desarrollar investigaciones que evalúen su impacto alargo plazo.
Descargas
-
Resumen28
-
pdf24
-
pdf 24
-
Anexo 12
-
Annex 1 0
Citas
1. Hauer K, Lockspeiser T, Chen H. The COVID‑19 pandemic as an imperative to advance medical student assessment: three areas for change. Acad. Med. 2021, 96, 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003764
2. Ten C, Regehr G. The power of subjectivity in the assessment of medical trainees. Acad. Med. 2019, 94, 333–337. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002495
3. Whitehead C, Kuper A, Hodges B, Ellaway R. Conceptual and practical challenges in the assessment of physician competencies. Med. Teach. 2015, 37, 245–251. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.993599
4. Witheridge A, Ferns G, Scott-Smith W. Revisiting Miller’s pyramid in medical education: the gap between traditional assessment and diagnostic reasoning. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2019, 10, 191–192. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.5d9b.0c37
5. Kang D, Siddiqui S, Weiss H, Sifri Z, Krishnaswami S, Nwomeh B, Price R, Tarpley J, Finlayson S, Swaroop M. Are we meeting ACGME core competencies? A systematic review of literature on international surgical rotations. Am. J. Surg. 2018, 216, 782–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.07.048
6. Ginsburg S, McIlroy J, Oulanova O, Eva K, Regehr G. Toward authentic clinical evaluation: pitfalls in the pursuit of competency. Acad. Med. 2010, 85, 780–786. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181d73fb6
7. Lockyer J, Carraccio C, Chan M, Hart D, Smee S, Touchie C, Holmboe E, Frank J, on behalf of the ICBME Collaborators. Core principles of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med. Teach. 2017, 39, 609–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1315082
8. Harris P, Bhanji F, Topps M, Ross S, Lieberman S, Frank J, Snell L, Sherbino J, on behalf of the ICBME Collaborators. Evolving concepts of assessment in a competency-based world. Med. Teach. 2017, 39, 603–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1315071
9. Lörwald A, Lahner F, Nouns Z, Berendonk C, Norcini J, Greif R, Huwendiek S. The educational impact of Mini‑Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini‑CEX) and Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) and its association with implementation: a systematic review and meta‑analysis. PLOS ONE 2018, 13, e0198009. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198009
10. McGrath J, Taekman J, Dev P, Danforth D, Mohan D, Kman N, Crichlow A, Bond W. Using virtual reality simulation environments to assess competence for emergency medicine learners. Acad. Emerg. Med. 2018, 25, 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.13308
11. Park J, Kwon H, Chung C. Innovative digital tools for new trends in teaching and assessment methods in medical and dental education. J. Educ. Eval. Health Prof. 2021, 18, 13. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.13
12. Zackoff M, Real F, Cruse B, Davis D, Klein M. Medical student perspectives on the use of immersive virtual reality for clinical assessment training. Acad. Pediatr. 2019, 19, 849–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2019.06.008
13. O’Leary M, Scully D, Karakolidis A, Pitsia V. The state‑of‑the‑art in digital technology‑based assessment. Eur. J. Educ. 2018, 53, 160–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12271
14. Kassutto S, Baston C, Clancy C. Virtual, augmented, and alternate reality in medical education: socially distanced but fully immersed. Sch. 2021, 2, 651–664. https://doi.org/10.34197/ats-scholar.2021-0002RE
15. World FFME. Basic medical education: WFME global standards for quality improvement. The 2020 revision. WFME 2020, https://wfme.org/standards/bme/
16. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016, 5, 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
17. Al A, Haque M, Parle J. A modified medical education research study quality instrument (MMERSQI) developed by Delphi consensus. BMC Med. Educ. 2023, 23, 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04033-6
18. Bord S, Retezar R, McCann P, Jung J. Development of an objective structured clinical examination for assessment of clinical skills in an emergency medicine clerkship. West. J. Emerg. Med. 2015, 16, 866–870. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2015.9.27307
19. Bozzo N, Arancibia S, Contreras R, Pérez G. Descripción y análisis de ECOE con pacientes simulados en internado de Medicina Interna 2016–2017 en Facultad de Medicina Universidad de Chile. Rev. Méd. Chile 2020, 148, 810–817. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872020000600810
20. Costich M, Friedman S, Robinson V, Catallozzi M. Implementation and faculty perception of outpatient medical student workplace-based assessments. Clin. Teach. 2024, 21, e13751. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13751
21. Gran S, Brænd A, Lindbæk M, Frich J. General practitioners’ and students’ experiences with feedback during a six‑week clerkship in general practice: a qualitative study. Scand. J. Prim. Health Care 2016, 34, 172–179. https://doi.org/10.3109/02813432.2016.1160633
22. Haruta J, Nakajima R, Monkawa T. Development of a validated assessment tool for medical students using simulated patients: an 8‑year panel survey. BMC Med. Educ. 2024, 24, 399. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05386-2
23. Kasai H, Ito S, Tajima H, Takahashi Y, Sakurai Y, Kawata N, Sugiyama H, Asahina M, Sakai I, Tatsumi K. The positive effect of student‑oriented clinical clerkship rounds employing role‑play and peer review on the clinical performance and professionalism of clerkship students. Med. Teach. 2020, 42, 73–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2019.1656330
24. Kim S, Willett L, Noveck H, Patel M, Walker J, Terregino C. Implementation of a Mini‑CEX requirement across all third‑year clerkships. Teach. Learn. Med. 2016, 28, 424–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2016.1165682
25. Klapheke M, Abrams M, Cubero M, Zhu X. Aligning medical student workplace‑based assessments with entrustable professional activities and the RIME model in a psychiatry clerkship. Acad. Psychiatry 2022, 46, 283–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-022-01614-3
26. Luo P, Shen J, Yu T, Zhang X, Zheng B, Yang J. Formative objective structured clinical examination with immediate feedback improves surgical clerks’ self‑confidence and clinical competence. Med. Teach. 2023, 45, 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2126755
27. Malone M, Way D, Leung C, Danforth D, Maicher K, Vakil J, Kman N, San M. Evaluation of high‑fidelity and virtual reality simulation platforms for assessing fourth‑year medical students’ encounters with patients in need of urgent or emergent care. Ann. Med. 2024, 56, 2382947. https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2024.2382947
28. Martinsen S, Espeland T, Berg E, Samstad E, Lillebo B, Slørdahl T. Examining the educational impact of the Mini‑CEX: a randomised controlled study. BMC Med. Educ. 2021, 21, 228. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02670-3
29. Okubo Y, Nomura K, Saito H, Saito N, Yoshioka T. Reflection and feedback in ambulatory education. Clin. Teach. 2014, 11, 355–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12164
30. Olupeliyawa A, Balasooriya C, Hughes C, O’Sullivan A. Educational impact of an assessment of medical students’ collaboration in health care teams. Med. Educ. 2014, 48, 146–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12318
31. Parikh P, Brown R, White M, Markert R, Eustace R, Tchorz K. Simulation‑based end‑of‑life care training during surgical clerkship: assessment of skills and perceptions. J. Surg. Res. 2015, 196, 258–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.03.019
32. Patel K, Anderson R, Becker C, Taylor W, Liu A, Varshney A, Ali N, Nath B, Pelletier S, Shields H, Osman N. Dual coaching of medical clerkship students’ history‑taking skills by volunteer inpatients at the bedside and faculty physicians on Zoom during the COVID‑19 pandemic. Adv. Med. Educ. Pract. 2024, 15, 923–933. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S472324
33. Perrig M, Berendonk C, Rogausch A, Beyeler C. Sustained impact of a short small‑group course with systematic feedback in addition to regular clinical clerkship activities on musculoskeletal examination skills: a controlled study. BMC Med. Educ. 2016, 16, 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0554-z
34. Phinney L, Fluet A, O’Brien B, Seligman L, Hauer K. Beyond checking boxes: exploring tensions with use of a workplace‑based assessment tool for formative assessment in clerkships. Acad. Med. 2022, 97, 1511–1520. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004774
35. Qureshi A, Zehra T. Simulated patient’s feedback to improve communication skills of clerkship students. BMC Med. Educ. 2020, 20, 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1914-2
36. Reid H, Branford K, Reynolds T, Baldwin M, Dotters-Katz S. It’s getting hot in here: piloting a telemedicine OSCE addressing menopausal concerns for obstetrics and gynecology clerkship students. MedEdPORTAL 2021, 11146. https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.11146
37. Rogausch A, Beyeler C, Montagne S, Jucker-Kupper P, Berendonk C, Huwendiek S, Gemperli A, Himmel W. The influence of students’ prior clinical skills and context characteristics on Mini‑CEX scores in clerkships: a multilevel analysis. BMC Med. Educ. 2015, 15, 208. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0490-3
38. Rouse M, Newman J, Waller C, Fink J. R.I.M.E. and reason: multi‑station OSCE enhancement to neutralize grade inflation. Med. Educ. Online 2024, 29, 2339040. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2024.2339040
39. Ryan M, Richards A, Perera R, Park Y, Stringer J, Waterhouse E, Dubinsky B, Khamishon R, Santen S. Generalizability of the Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room Evaluation (O‑SCORE) scale to assess medical student performance on core EPAs in the workplace: findings from one institution. Acad. Med. 2021, 96, 1197–1204. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003921
40. Ryan M, Gielissen K, Shin D, Perera R, Gusic M, Ferenchick G, Ownby A, Cutrer W, Obeso V, Santen S. How well do workplace‑based assessments support summative entrustment decisions? A multi‑institutional generalisability study. Med. Educ. 2024, 58, 825–837. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15291
41. Shikino K, Tsukamoto T, Noda K, Ohira Y, Yokokawa D, Hirose Y, Sato E, Mito T, Ota T, Katsuyama Y, Uehara T, Ikusaka M. Do clinical interview transcripts generated by speech recognition software improve clinical reasoning performance in mock patient encounters? A prospective observational study. BMC Med. Educ. 2023, 23, 272. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04246-9
42. Sullivan S, Bingman E, O’Rourke A, Pugh C. Piloting virtual surgical patient cases with third‑year medical students during the surgery rotation. Am. J. Surg. 2016, 211, 689–696.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.11.021
43. Torre D, Hemmer P, Durning S, Dong T, Swygert K, Schreiber‑Gregory D, Kelly W, Pangaro L. Gathering validity evidence on an internal medicine clerkship multistep exam to assess medical student analytic ability. Teach. Learn. Med. 2021, 33, 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2020.1749635
44. Natesan P, Batley N, Bakhti R, El‑Doueihi P. Challenges in measuring ACGME competencies: considerations for milestones. Int. J. Emerg. Med. 2018, 11, 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12245-018-0198-3
45. McCoy L, Pettit R, Lewis J, Bennett T, Carrasco N, Brysacz S, et al. Developing technology‑enhanced active learning for medical education: challenges, solutions, and future directions. J. Osteopath. Med. 2015, 115, 202–211. https://doi.org/10.7556/jaoa.2015.042
46. Brydges R, Hatala R, Zendejas B, Erwin P, Cook D. Linking simulation‑based educational assessments and patient‑related outcomes: a systematic review and meta‑analysis. Acad. Med. 2015, 90, 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000549
47. Sapci A, Sapci H. Artificial intelligence education and tools for medical and health informatics students: systematic review. JMIR Med. Educ. 2020, 6, e19285. https://doi.org/10.2196/19285
48. Goh P. The vision of transformation in medical education after the COVID‑19 pandemic. Korean J. Med. Educ. 2021, 33, 171–174. https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2021.197
49. Holmboe E, Sherbino J, Englander R, Snell L, Frank J, on behalf of the ICBME Collaborators. A call to action: the controversy of and rationale for competency‑based medical education. Med. Teach. 2017, 39, 574–581. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1315067
50. Pottle J. Virtual reality and the transformation of medical education. Future Healthc. J. 2019, 6, 181–185. https://doi.org/10.7861/fhj.2019-0036
51. Scott A, Gartner A. Low fidelity simulation in a high fidelity world. Postgrad. Med. J. 2019, 95, 687–688. https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2019-FPM.9
52. Tainter C, Wong N, Bittner E. Innovative strategies in critical care education. J. Crit. Care 2015, 30, 550–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2015.02.001
53. Fragkos K. Reflective practice in healthcare education: an umbrella review. Educ. Sci. 2016, 6, 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci6030027
54. Jorwekar G. Reflective practice as a method of learning in medical education: history and review of literature. Int. J. Res. Med. Sci. 2017, 5, 1188. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20171223
55. MacAskill W, Chua W, Woodall H, Pinidiyapathirage J. Beyond the written reflection: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis of creative approaches to reflective learning amongst medical students. Perspect. Med. Educ. 2023, 12, 361–371. https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.914
56. Leung K, Peisah C. A mixed‑methods systematic review of group reflective practice in medical students. Healthcare 2023, 11, 1798. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11121798
57. Eljack M, Elhadi Y, Mahgoub E, Ahmed K, Mohamed M, Elnaiem W, et al. Physician experiences with teleconsultations amidst conflict in Sudan. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 22688. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-49967-5
58. Radfar A, Chevalier C, Rouse N, Patriche D, Filip I. Telemedicine: new horizons in healthcare. J. Hosp. Adm. 2017, 6, 40. https://doi.org/10.5430/jha.v6n2p40
59. Kuo R, Delvecchio F, Babayan R, Preminger G. Telemedicine: recent developments and future applications. J. Endourol. 2001, 15, 63–66. https://doi.org/10.1089/08927790150500971
60. Malhotra P, Ramachandran A, Chauhan R, Soni D, Garg N. Assessment of knowledge, perception, and willingness of using telemedicine among medical and allied healthcare students studying in private institutions. Telehealth Med. Today 2020, https://doi.org/10.30953/tmt.v5.228
61. Otto L, Schlieter H, Harst L, Whitehouse D, Maeder A. The telemedicine community readiness model—successful telemedicine implementation and scale‑up. Front. Digit. Health 2023, 5, 1057347. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2023.1057347
62. Waseh S, Dicker A. Telemedicine training in undergraduate medical education: mixed‑methods review. JMIR Med. Educ. 2019, 5, e12515. https://doi.org/10.2196/12515
63. Hindman D, Kochis S, Apfel A, Prudent J, Kumra T, Golden W, et al. Improving medical students’ OSCE performance in telehealth: the effects of a telephone medicine curriculum. Acad. Med. 2020, 95, 1908–1912. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003622
Derechos de autor 2026 Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Las obras que se publican en esta revista están sujetas a los siguientes términos:
1. El Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia (la editorial) conserva los derechos patrimoniales (copyright) de las obras publicadas y favorece y permite la reutilización de las mismas bajo la licencia de uso indicada en el punto 2.
© Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de Murcia
2. Las obras se publican bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 4.0.
3. Condiciones de auto-archivo. Se permite y se anima a los autores a difundir electrónicamente las versiones preprint (versión antes de ser evaluada y enviada a la revista) y/o post-print (versión evaluada y aceptada para su publicación) de sus obras antes de su publicación, ya que favorece su circulación y difusión más temprana y con ello un posible aumento en su citación y alcance entre la comunidad académica.
