Teaching Medical Students Oral Presentations Skills Kathryn Fisher, M.D., M.S., Catherine Reynolds, M.D., Mandy Hill, Dr.P.H, M.P.H., Misha Granado, M.S., M.P.H., and Michael Van Meter, M.D., M.S. CLICK TO GO BACK TO KIOSK MENU Department of Emergency Medicine, McGovern Medical School, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Conclusion Our pilot study data supports the need for instruction for EM-bound medical students on EM-specific oral presentations There was no difference in sense of preparedness for students who had prior training in EM-focused presentations, suggesting that current methods are ineffective After implementation of a didactic curriculum, students felt significantly more prepared to give patient presentations in the emergency department There was no statistically significant difference in effectiveness between each of the components of the didactic curriculum, suggesting that a multimodal approach may be most effective Background Medical students often receive generalized training in oral presentations, but lack preparation for Emergency Medicine (EM)-specific presentations Formatting of EM presentations differs in length, focus, and structure from standard presentations Previous research suggests that students require further instruction on EM-focused oral presentations We hypothesize that a multi-modal approach will be most effective To assess the need for further research and additional training of EM-bound medical students in EM-specific oral presentations, and to evaluate the efficacy of components of a didactic, multimodal curriculum Objective Material & Methods Fourth-year EM-bound students (home and away rotators) were voluntarily enrolled Students (n=13) anonymously completed a pre-instruction survey on prior training in oral presentations and sense of preparation for EM-focused oral presentations Students then completed a self-paced, multimodal curriculum from existing sources At the end of the rotation, students filled out unmatched surveys to rate their sense of preparedness and the effectiveness of each component of the curriculum Data were analyzed using t-test for statistical significance for preparedness and ANOVA for curriculum components   77% of students had previous education in oral presentations, however less than half (31%) reported receiving EM-specific training On pre-intervention surveys, students had an average of 5.92/10 when asked how prepared they felt presenting in an EM format, regardless of whether or not they had received prior EM-specific oral presentation preparation (p=0.90) Students surveyed after curriculum completion felt significantly more prepared presenting an EM case, with an average of 8.18/10 (p<.05) There was no significant difference in the effectiveness between each of the components of the curriculum (F(4,48) = 0.16, p= 0.96) Results Description of Methods Description of Stats? Or next page?

Multimodal Curriculum Background Previous Research Multimodal Curriculum Primary literature Supplemental outline from primary literature Video with examples Podcast Podcast notes In 2015, Duong et al found that 78% of medical students in their study felt that learning to present an emergency medicine oral case presentation requires additional instruction beyond the existing medical school curriculum However, only 37% of surveyed students reported getting EM-specific instruction on oral presentations while in medical school. In 2012, Heiman et al. used a model based on e-learning and deliberate practice to teach oral presentation skills to second-year medical students. Heiman et al. found that on-line learning combined with coached, deliberate practice improves students’ clinical reasoning, organization, and length of presentation. Additionally, this strategy gave the students a standard model to follow when presenting References: 1. Carroll, Steve. “How to give a good ED presentation” EMBasic podcast notes. 2012 http://embasic.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/17-how-to-give-a-good-ed-patient-presentation.pdf 2.    Duong, David K., Leslie C. Oyama, Jessica L. Smith, Aneesh T. Narang, and Jordan Spector. "Medical Student Perceptions on the Instruction of the Emergency Medicine Oral Case Presentation." The Journal of Emergency Medicine 48.3 (2015): 337-43. 3.    Davenport, Chip, Benjamin Honigman, and Jeff Druck. "The 3-Minute Emergency Medicine Medical Student Presentation: A Variation on a Theme." Academic Emergency Medicine15.7 (2008): 683-87. 4.    Heiman, Heather L., Toshiko Uchida, Craig Adams, John Butter, Elaine Cohen, Stephen D. Persell, Paul Pribaz, William C. Mcgaghie, and Gary J. Martin. "E-learning and Deliberate Practice for Oral Case Presentation Skills: A Randomized Trial." Medical Teacher 34.12 (2012): n. pag 5.    Patient Presentations. 2015. EMRA Education Committee/CDEM. (https://www.emra.org/students/education/patient-presentations/)

Materials and Methods Experimental Design Pre-Survey Material & Methods Fourth-year EM-bound students (home and away rotators) were voluntarily enrolled. Students (n=13) anonymously completed a pre-instruction survey on prior training for oral presentations and feelings of preparedness for EM-focused oral presentations Students then completed a self-paced, multimodal curriculum from existing sources At the end of the rotation students filled out unmatched surveys to rate their sense of preparedness and the effectiveness of each component of the curriculum Experimental Design Pre-Survey Didactic Curriculum Post-Survey Statistical Analysis Data were analyzed using a two-sample t-test assuming unequal variances for statistical significance for comparing average feelings of preparedness pre- and post-intervention ANOVA was used to analyze effectiveness of curriculum components

Results 77% of students had previous education in oral presentations, however less than half (31%) reported receiving EM-specific training On pre-intervention surveys, students had an average of 5.92/10 when asked how prepared they felt presenting in an EM format, regardless of whether or not they had received prior EM-specific oral presentation preparation (p=0.90) Students surveyed after curriculum completion felt significantly more prepared presenting an EM case, with an average of 8.18/10 (p<.05) There was no significant difference in the effectiveness between each of the components of the curriculum (F(4,48) = 0.16, p= 0.96) Results Figure 2 (below): Average feelings of preparedness for EM-focused oral presentations pre- and post-intervention Figure 3 (Right): Effectiveness of each curriculum component of a multimodal didactic curriculum

Conclusions, Limitations and Future Directions Pilot study conclusions Our pilot study data supports the need for further and more standardized instruction for EM-bound medical students on EM-formatted oral presentations After implementation of a didactic curriculum, students felt significantly more prepared to give patient presentations in the ED There was no statistically significant difference in effectiveness between each of the components of the didactic curriculum, suggesting that a multimodal approach may be most effective 1. Pilot Feasibility Study (complete) 2. Validation of oral presentations rubric (In-progress) 3. Full study with didactic curriculum, rubric to grade students on shift Study Limitations 2 students were lost to follow-up: 1 did not complete the rotation, 1 did not complete a post-survey Student completion of didactic curriculum was on the “honor system”