PURPOSE: This case study explored the use of Google Glass in a clinical examination scenario to capture the first-person perspective of a standardized patient as a way to provide formative feedback on students' communication and empathy skills ‘through the patient's eyes.' METHODS: During a 3-year period between 2014 and 2017, third-year students enrolled in a family medicine clerkship participated in a Google Glass station during a summative clinical examination. At this station, standardized patients wore Google Glass to record an encounter focused on communication and empathy skills ‘through the patient's eyes.' Students completed an online survey using a 4-point Likert scale about their perspectives on Google Glass as a feedback tool (N= 255). RESULTS: We found that the students' experiences with Google Glass ‘through the patient's eyes' were largely positive and that students felt the feedback provided by the Google Glass recording to be helpful. Although a third of the students felt that Google Glass was a distraction, the majority believed that the first-person perspective recordings provided an opportunity for feedback that did not exist before. CONCLUSION: Continuing exploration of first-person perspective recordings using Google Glass to improve education on communication and empathy skills is warranted.
Education ; Education, Medical ; Empathy ; Formative Feedback ; Glass ; Humans ; United States

PURPOSE: This case study explored the use of Google Glass in a clinical examination scenario to capture the first-person perspective of a standardized patient as a way to provide formative feedback on students' communication and empathy skills ‘through the patient's eyes.' METHODS: During a 3-year period between 2014 and 2017, third-year students enrolled in a family medicine clerkship participated in a Google Glass station during a summative clinical examination. At this station, standardized patients wore Google Glass to record an encounter focused on communication and empathy skills ‘through the patient's eyes.' Students completed an online survey using a 4-point Likert scale about their perspectives on Google Glass as a feedback tool (N= 255). RESULTS: We found that the students' experiences with Google Glass ‘through the patient's eyes' were largely positive and that students felt the feedback provided by the Google Glass recording to be helpful. Although a third of the students felt that Google Glass was a distraction, the majority believed that the first-person perspective recordings provided an opportunity for feedback that did not exist before. CONCLUSION Continuing exploration of first-person perspective recordings using Google Glass to improve education on communication and empathy skills is warranted.

PURPOSE: It aimed to find if written test results improved for advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) taught in flipped classroom/team-based Learning (FC/TBL) vs. lecture-based (LB) control in University of California-Irvine School of Medicine, USA. METHODS: Medical students took 2010 ACLS with FC/TBL (2015), compared to 3 classes in LB (2012-14) format. There were 27.5 hours of instruction for FC/TBL model (TBL 10.5, podcasts 9, small-group simulation 8 hours), and 20 (12 lecture, simulation 8 hours) in LB. TBL covered 13 cardiac cases; LB had none. Seven simulation cases and didactic content were the same by lecture (2012-14) or podcast (2015) as was testing: 50 multiple-choice questions (MCQ), 20 rhythm matchings, and 7 fill-in clinical cases. RESULTS: 354 students took the course (259 [73.1%] in LB in 2012-14, and 95 [26.9%] in FC/TBL in 2015). Two of 3 tests (MCQ and fill-in) improved for FC/TBL. Overall, median scores increased from 93.5% (IQR 90.6, 95.4) to 95.1% (92.8, 96.7, P=0.0001). For the fill-in test: 94.1% for LB (89.6, 97.2) to 96.6% for FC/TBL (92.4, 99.20 P=0.0001). For MC: 88% for LB (84, 92) to 90% for FC/TBL (86, 94, P=0.0002). For the rhythm test: median 100% for both formats. More students failed 1 of 3 tests with LB vs. FC/TBL (24.7% vs. 14.7%), and 2 or 3 components (8.1% vs. 3.2%, P=0.006). Conversely, 82.1% passed all 3 with FC/TBL vs. 67.2% with LB (difference 14.9%, 95% CI 4.8-24.0%). CONCLUSION: A FC/TBL format for ACLS marginally improved written test results.
Advanced Cardiac Life Support* ; California* ; Choice Behavior ; Humans ; Learning* ; Students, Medical* ; United States