OSCE at the end of Pre-professorial Clinical Appointments & Curriculum review

There is a lack of awareness regarding the importance of the appointments done before the professorial appointments. And this has been the observation and complains of our teachers for a past few years.

As rightly mentioned by the Batch representative of 29th batch at the Medicos Nite 2011, the Students are taking the pre-professorial clinical appointments light heartedly and tend to realize that they failed to make the best use of them to their full potential when doing the professorial appointments in their final year. And this always remains the ‘crematoria wisdom’ of each medical student.

The students have to pay attention to the learning objectives of each appointment and also interact with their seniors to realize the weight of each appointment. It has become a tradition of the juniors to just ask the seniors as to how to survive and finish the appointment rather than acquiring the prescribed clinical knowledge, skills and attitudes during the pre-professorial appointments.

So as to ensure the students’ attainment, it is recommended to introduce a at the end Pre-professorial appointments at the curriculum revision workshop conducted on 4th of January 2013, discussed at the meeting of the Medical Education Cell (MEC) on 7th August 2013 and placed at before faculty board for approval at its 287 meeting held on 18 September 2013 and forwarded to senate.

The OSCE is to be considered as a special examination in the fourth year following the Part 2 examination and conducted under the examination rules and regulations of the University. The format of the OSCE will be 20 stations divided among the clinical subjects as follows: Medicine -4, surgery -4, Paediatrics -4, Obs and Gynae -4, Psychiatry -2, Community medicine -2. Timing for each station will be 5 minutes. The aspects to be examined are: History taking, physical examination, ward procedures, data interpretation and communication. The pool of examiners will include the consultants, registrars and senior registrars from Faculty and the Extended Faculty.

The manned stations will be marked by the examiners present as the candidates perform the given task. The answers for the un-manned stations will be corrected by the respective examiners. When the correction is completed, all examiners will meet and discuss the performance and finalize the results. The marks obtained for each subject will be calculated and the decision on the grade obtained will be given separately. The marks in each subject will be computed into the in-course assessment mark for the subjects at the Final.

The students will have to obtain 50% in each subject to pass the examination.

From the 35th batch on-wards passing the OSCE will be an essential criterion to enter into the final year. Those who fail even in one component will have to repeat the failed appointment and re-sit the OSCE with the next batch. Those who miss the batch for this reason will not be entitled for class honors at the final examination. As the 32nd, 33rd and 34th batch have started their pre-professorial clinical appointments according to the older curriculum students who fail the fourth year OSCE will be counseled and a viva voce will be held in 2 weeks time. They will proceed to the final year if they perform satisfactorily at the viva voice examination. Those who fail will have to repeat relevant appointments with junior batches and appear for the OSCE with that batch.

Curriculum review and accommodating the changes with time is an importance allegiance of any educational institution, especially in a swiftly advancing medical field. The success of the curriculum of a faculty is nothing less than the attainment of its products, and that is accomplished in a compatible students’ environment and good students’ compliance. Medical Education Cell of our faculty has been working on this and recently discussed the Quality Assurance Programme based on the Program Review Report sent on in November 2008 by Prof Colin N. Peris, Quality Assurance Specialist. It was held on 29 of August 2013. According to Dr. S. Sanchayan, there were four category of recommendation i.e. “Exce1lent”, “Good”, “Satisfactory” and “Unsatisfactory”. According to our Program Review, the overall judgment in “Teaching, Learning and Assessment Method” and “Peer Observation” were unsatisfactory. It was suggested that the Blue Print is a must for each examination and we could have workshop on Blue Print to make it compulsory with the approval of the Faculty Board and -learning facilities should be started soon through Module.

There were 24 comments on which discussions were held. The action taken and plans for future action were reported to the faculty board at its 287th meeting. The comments were;

  1. Content overload in phase I (credit system, GPA)
  2. Obtain observations of senior academics in sister faculties in content areas and time allocation
  3. Greater involvement of various stake holders in curriculum revision plans – present students, recent graduates, SLMA, SLMC employers
  4. SDC and MEU should be made active and provide training programs
  5. Make learning objectives/outcomes  available to students
  6. Extend the use of logbooks to other clinical appointments
  7. Teaching method of Forensic Medicine
  8. Shortage of qualified Medical teachers
  9. Fill vacant academic chairs
  10. Absence of medical consultants in neurosurgery, cardiothoracic surgery, Pathology and Forensic medicine in the Teaching hospital
  11. Develop assessment system using valid and reliable assessment methods
  12. Introduce a variety of relevant teaching and assessment methods
  13. MCQs are marked manually
  14. Textbooks to the Library
  15. Internet facilities forwards in hospital for students and PG Trainees
  16. Electronic Notice Board
  17. Introduce research culture and form links with other institutes
  18. A system to get regular feedback for all teaching learning program, including clinical teaching
  19. Peer evaluation of teaching learning activities including the extended faculty
  20. Awareness and involvement of the nonacademic staff in the implementation of the new curriculum
  21. Opportunities for carrier development and training for non academic staff
  22. Students from faraway place face problems in travel, Security, Obtaining financial and other support from families
  23. Student Counselors could inform a dedicated time for counseling, Establish a system of academic counseling at the level of each Departs
  24. Length of the MBBS course.

The action taken and plans for future action on these comments are made available in website (Given Below)

Students have to come forward and actively take part in the efforts taken by the administration to uplift the Alma mater of OURS.

Reference:

  1. Faculty Memo: FB/287/4 (c) (i)
  2. Current Issues: FB/287/2 (ii)

2nd Newsletter

This article by B. Paul Bright (Student Representative / Faculty Board) was appeared in the Second MSU Newsletter published in March 2014.

 

 

The action taken and plans for future action on the comments by Quality Assurance Report.

Editor MSU

Editor of MSU

You may also like...

Leave a Reply