↓ Skip to main content

An innovative OSCE clinical log station: a quantitative study of its influence on Log use by medical students

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An innovative OSCE clinical log station: a quantitative study of its influence on Log use by medical students
Published in
BMC Medical Education, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/1472-6920-12-111
Pubmed ID
Authors

Judith N Hudson, Helen Rienits, Linda Corrin, Martin Olmos

Abstract

A Clinical Log was introduced as part of a medical student learning portfolio, aiming to develop a habit of critical reflection while learning was taking place, and provide feedback to students and the institution on learning progress. It was designed as a longitudinal self-directed structured record of student learning events, with reflection on these for personal and professional development, and actions planned or taken for learning.As incentive was needed to encourage student engagement, an innovative Clinical Log station was introduced in the OSCE, an assessment format with established acceptance at the School. This study questions: How does an OSCE Clinical Log station influence Log use by students?

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 118 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Master 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 41 34%
Unknown 26 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 36%
Social Sciences 14 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 27 22%