METHODS: All fourth-year pharmacy students enrolled in Monash University in 2017 were provided access to MOVE. Cost-minimization analyses were performed to evaluate the cost of introducing MOVE in the pharmacy course using the smallest cohort size (Malaysia campus) of 40 students as the base case. We also determined under what circumstances MOVE would be more cost-effective, considering the different operational situations such as when student numbers increased or when the number of simulation modules created were increased.
RESULTS: The overall cost of setup and implementation of MOVE in the first year of implementation among 40 students was US $94.38 per student. In comparison, the face-to-face workshop cost was US $64.14 per student. On the second year of implementation, the ongoing cost of operation of MOVE was US $32.86 per student compared with US $58.97 per student using face-to-face workshop. A net benefit using MOVE was observed after the third year of implementation. Larger savings were noted when the cohort size extends larger than 100 students.
CONCLUSIONS: Monash OSCE Virtual Experience was a flexible and cost-effective approach to aid students in preparation for an OSCE and enhanced students' learning experience. The wider applicability of these findings will need to be explored in other settings.
METHODS: A bibliometric review was conducted on literature from over 23 years from January 2000 to May 2023. Articles focusing on any type of OSCE research in pharmacy education in both undergraduate and postgraduate sectors were included. Articles were excluded if they were not original articles or not published in English. A summative content analysis was also conducted to identify key topics.
RESULTS: A total of 192 articles were included in the analysis. There were 242 institutions that contributed to the OSCE literature in pharmacy education, with the leading country being Canada. Most OSCE research came from developed countries and were descriptive studies based on single institution data. The top themes emerging from content analysis were student perceptions on OSCE station styles (n = 98), staff perception (n = 19), grade assessment of OSCEs (n = 145), interprofessional education (n = 11), standardized patients (n = 12), and rubric development and standard setting (n = 8).
IMPLICATIONS: There has been a growth in virtual OSCEs, interprofessional OSCEs, and artificial intelligence OSCEs. Communication rubrics and minimizing assessor variability are still trending research areas. There is scope to conduct more research on evaluating specific types of OSCEs, when best to hold an OSCE, and comparing OSCEs to other assessments.
METHODS: Students completed a three-station OSCE and a written self-reflection about their performance. These reflections were coded using a latent pattern content analysis, with categories defined as "doing well (≥ 50% on exam)" and "not doing well (< 50% on exam)" and compared to their actual OSCE exam scores, to determine the degree of alignment.
RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-nine students completed the OSCE and reflection. Students had a low degree of alignment between their self-reflections and actual OSCE performance. Low alignment was overwhelmingly prevalent and significant in high-achieving students with OSCE scores of ≥90%. Most common aspects students reflected on as indicators of performance were finishing on time and communicating effectively. High-achieving students reflected on aspects such as empathy, systematic questioning, and patient teach-back as aspects of their performance.
CONCLUSIONS: Student reflections on exam performance do not align with their actual performance, particularly amongst the high-achieving students. High-achieving students were more aware of the different aspects that affected their performance. To ensure that high-achieving students are aware of their strengths, educators should provide more targeted feedback mechanisms and positive reassurances to help these students become more confident in their decision-making skills.