Isn’t here just there without a “t” – to what extent can digital Clinical Case Discussions compensate for the absence of face-to-face teaching?

• Main Authors: Zottmann, Jan M., Horrer, Anna, Chouchane, Amir, Huber, Johanna, Heuser, Sonja, Iwaki, Lica, Kowalski, Christian, Gartmeier, Martin, Berberat, Pascal O., Fischer, Martin R., Weidenbusch, Marc
• Format: Article
• Language: deu
• Published: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House 2020-12-01
• Series: GMS Journal for Medical Education
• Subjects: case-based learning; clinical reasoning; peer teaching; curriculum development; undergraduate medical education; digitalisation
• Online Access: http://www.egms.de/static/en/journals/zma/2020-37/zma001392.shtml

Objective: COVID-19 challenges curriculum managers worldwide to create digital substitutes for classroom teaching. Case-based teaching formats under expert supervision can be used as a substitute for practical bedside teaching, where the focus is on teaching clinical reasoning skills.Methods: For medical students of LMU and TU Munich, the interactive, case-based, and supervised teaching format of Clinical Case Discussion (CCD) was digitised and implemented as dCCD in their respective curricula. Case discussions were realised as videoconferences, led by a student moderator, and took place under the supervision of a board-certified clinician. To prevent passive participation, additional cognitive activations were implemented. Acceptance, usability, and subjective learning outcomes were assessed in dCCDs by means of a special evaluation concept.Results: With regard to acceptance, students were of the opinion that they had learned effectively by participating in dCCDs (M=4.31; SD=1.37). The majority of students also stated that they would recommend the course to others (M=4.23; SD=1.62). The technical implementation of the teaching format was judged positively overall, but findings for usability were heterogeneous. Students rated their clinical reasoning skills at the end of the dCCDs (M=4.43; SD=0.66) as being significantly higher than at the beginning (M=4.33; SD=0.69), with low effect size, t(181)=-2.352, p=.020, d=0.15.Conclusion: Our evaluation data shows that the dCCD format is well-accepted by students as a substitute for face-to-face teaching. In the next step, we plan to examine the extent to which participation in dCCDs leads to an increase in objectively measured clinical reasoning skills, analogous to a face-to-face CCD with on-site attendance.