Abstract
Background:
Medical and health professions students use digital media in their educational pursuits. No studies have examined the process or utility of reviewing digital recordings of a clinical encounter. This pilot study examined how physical therapy students varied in their approach when compared to practicing physical therapists, in their self-reflection and assessment of a recorded physical therapist (PT) encounter with a standardized patient (SP).
Methods:
A single site, cross-sectional, mixed-methods design was used. Participants reviewed an 11-minute digital recording of a patient encounter and completed survey questions. Post-survey interview sessions were used to gain additional perspective from participants.
Results:
Ninety-two physical therapy students across three levels of training and twenty-seven physical therapists participated in the study. Self-ratings of perceived clinical ability increased with each year of training. First-year students (PY1) gave higher performance ratings to the PT than other groups. Seventy-five percent of respondents found the review of the digital recording to be a useful tool for reflection. A variety of approaches in the review process were found across groups, especially between clinicians and students.
Conclusion:
Review of a recording of a physical therapist’s encounter with an SP can be a useful educational tool for reflection across training levels of students and clinicians.
Introduction
With the advent of handheld devices and online video sharing platforms, using prepared digital media to train medical and health science students has become easier and more acceptable. Access to digital recordings in education has resulted in students observing and analyzing video as a resource for learning. Increasing numbers of medical students are opting to watch recorded lectures of content at their convenience instead of attending in-person lectures (1). Previous research has found that medical students prefer the use of video recordings over reading materials (2). Medical educators in the 21st century need to be purposeful, proficient and intentional with incorporating video technology to develop future clinicians (3).
An example of intentional technology in medical education is the use of virtual patients to train clinicians. Virtual patients can be two-dimensional patients in a computer game or standardized patients (SPs). Virtual patients allow for the training and development of future clinicians by providing a standardized safe practice, and an on demand environment in which to learn (4). Video and virtual patients can prepare the developing clinician for challenging “real life” clinical encounters and developing reflective practice (5, 6). Scherer et al. (7) found that videotape review of trauma resuscitations resulted in behavioral change in team compared to verbal feedback alone.
Video is utilized in physical therapy education, but its impact on student development is not clear. Previous research has reported mixed results in using video to facilitate student physical therapists’ clinical development (8–10). The results differed as the previous studies used varying methodologies, including utilization of video and outcomes. A recent educational case study indicated that physical therapy students found benefits in reviewing their own Integrated Standardized Patient Examinations (ISPEs) (11). Exploring how students, at various semester levels in a program, view and analyze a recording of a physical therapist’s encounter with a standardized patient may lead to the development of a subsequent framework for guiding students viewing of recordings to maximize educational gains. The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to determine whether watching a video of a physical therapist’s (PT) encounter with a standardized patient (SP) facilitated the viewer’s learning and self-reflection and (2) to explore how students at various educational levels viewed and analyzed a training video as compared to practicing clinicians.
Methods
The IRB gave a certificate of exemption for this study. A mixed-method research design approach was used to allow for in-depth exploration and context of the subjects’ experience (12). Survey responses were collected, recorded, and managed online using REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) a secure, web-based software platform designed to support validated data capture for research studies (13, 14). In addition, participants were asked to participate in an optional post-experience individual interview or group sessions.
Participants
Participants in the study were recruited from two groups. Graduate students enrolled in an entry level physical therapy education program were deemed “students” with the naming system based on professional year (PY1 for first-year students, PY2 for second year, PY3 for third year). Associated practicing clinical faculty who taught in the entry level PT program participated as PTs. Descriptive information of the student (PY) and clinician (PT) participants is presented in Tables 1, 2.
Table 1
| Student year | Total number (number by gender) | Self-perceived ability |
|---|---|---|
| 0 = beginner 100 = expert | ||
| Mean (±S.D.) | ||
| PY1 | 33 | 9.71 (±18.24) |
| Female = 27 | ||
| Male = 5 | ||
| Agender = 1 | ||
| PY2 | 33 | 17.47 (±21.42) |
| Female = 20 | ||
| Male = 10 | ||
| Agender = 2 | ||
| Non-binary = 1 | ||
| PY3 | 26 | 25.62(±27.56) |
| Female = 22 | ||
| Male = 4 |
Descriptive information of students (PY) reviewing recording.
Table 2
| Gender | Number | Years experience mean (+S.D.) |
Self-perceived ability 0=Beginner; 100=Expert Mean (+S.D.) |
Board certification | Fellowship trained | Practice setting (All that apply) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 17 | 12.54 (+10.17) | 82.69 (+10.44) | 10 | 4 | 8-Outpatient 4-Inpatient 4-Private Practice 1-Home Health 1-Other |
| Male | 10 | 11.70 (+7.83) | 77.70 (+16.87) | 6 | 0 | 7-Outpatient 2-Private Practice 2-Other |
Descriptive information of physical therapists (PTs) reviewing recording.
Clinical scenario and recording
An 11-minute case video portraying a middle-aged man presenting to physical therapy under with reports of low back pain (LBP) and abdominal pain was videoed using best practice standards (15–17). The video was designed to highlight a common reason (LBP) for a patient to seek physical therapy care, and to rule out possible systems (gastrointestinal) involvement, through interviewing and physical exam. A script and written and verbal instructions were provided to both the PT and SP prior to the rehearsal of the scenario. A pilot test simulation of the scenario was conducted, and feedback was provided to the PT and SP prior to recording. The PT was instructed to perform at an intermediate level of PT skill throughout the encounter. A sequence of screenshots with guiding instructions and time stamps from the recording can be found in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Screenshots from the digital recording of the physical therapist encounter with the standardized patient.
Survey design and distribution
A survey was developed which included demographic data, observation and debriefing questions (Appendix A). Two questions (#9 & #10) were based on the Plus-Delta approach to simulation debriefing (18, 19). After consenting to the study, participants immediately viewed the 11-minute video. Participants subsequently submitted proof of completion of video review then answered the survey questions. Survey responses were anonymous. Participants were also invited for post-study interviews with the secondary author. Interviews were conducted via Zoom, which is considered a viable resource for collecting qualitative data (20). A script (see Appendix B) was used for each interview session.
Data collection
Deidentified data were exported from REDCap to an Excel file. Descriptive statistics, plots and linear and logistic regressions were performed in R (21). Narrative responses were downloaded and assigned a unique identifier for thematic review. NVivo, (Luminvero) was used to sort narrative responses. Transcripts were recorded from the interview sessions. The primary and secondary author independently reviewed narrative responses from the survey and interviews to prevent bias of results. Both authors independently generated codes and themes for the narrative responses from the survey and interviews, respectively. Both authors used a team-based, iterative approach to explore the respective data (22). All themes were developed by the reviewing, comparing, and analyzing codes. To ensure trustworthiness, the authors followed the constructs outlined in the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (23).
Results
Out of 217 eligible students, 92 students participated (42.39%). The participation rate for clinicians was 26% (27 clinicians out of 104). Descriptive information of students (PYs) and clinicians (PTs) is found in Tables 1, 2. Students (PY) and clinicians (PT) provided self-ratings of their own perceived clinical ability (Tables 1, 2). The mean self-ratings increased with each year of training. The clinician self-ratings were closer to the expert rating, and higher for those who self-identified as female, rather than male.
The mean rating of the physical therapist’s performance rated by clinicians was 62.32 (± 16.69). First-year physical therapy students (PY1) rated the PT more highly than clinicians or other students. A comparison of participant’s own self-rating to the rating which they assigned to the PT in the recording is provided in Figure 2. Self-rating of ability in comparison to the rating of the PT in the recording is necessary to demonstrate context and engagement of the participant.
Figure 2
Scatterplot of rating of PT in recording with self-rating of perceived ability across level of experience. PY1, professional year 1; PY2, professional year 2; PY3, professional year 3; PT, licensed physical therapist.
A summary of multi-tasking methods which students and clinicians used while reviewing the recording can be found in Table 3. Students across all levels of training appeared to use the fast play speed (e.g., 1.5x, 1.75x) setting while reviewing the recording, with PY3 students using it the most. Clinicians were less likely to use the fast play setting, although 25% of clinicians utilized the feature. The use of fast-forwarding through the recording was not used at all by clinicians (PT = 0%), but was by some students, mostly in PY2. Clinicians (PT) were more likely to take notes, whereas the method was much less utilized by all student groups. The pause feature was most utilized by PY3 students, with PTs utilizing it next most commonly. Clinicians (PT) had a higher mean rating of self-reported review focus as compared to all student groups, with 3rd year (PY3) students reporting the most focus of the three student groups (Figure 3).
Table 3
| Experience | Fast forward | Fast speed | Paused | Reviewed other websites | Text messaged | Took notes | Listened to music | Watched TV, movies and/or other videos | None of the above |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PY 1 | 6% | 51.52% | 15.15% | 0.00% | 12.12% | 9.09% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 27.27% |
| PY 2 | 15.15% | 51.52% | 15.15% | 3.03% | 12.12% | 9.09% | 3.03% | 0.00% | 12.12% |
| PY 3 | 3.85% | 53.85% | 34.62% | 7.69% | 15.38% | 15.38% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 7.69% |
| PT | 0% | 25% | 29.60% | 11.11% | 3.70% | 40.70% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 18.52% |
Self-reported multi-tasking while watching recording separated by experience.
PY1, professional year 1, PY2, professional year 2, PY3, professional year 3, PT, licensed physical therapist.
Figure 3
Boxplot of “review focus” and level of experience. Focus rating scale: 4 = strongly agree; 3 = agree; 2 = neutral; 1 = disagree; 0 = strongly disagree.
Overall, 74.79% of all respondents (89/119) answered either “Agree (3)” or “Strongly Agree (4)” when asked if reviewing the recording was “a useful tool in reflecting on my own professional ability and development.” Third year students (PY3) appeared to find the review of the recording most helpful in reflecting on professional ability and development, with a mean response of 3.22 (±0.52). PY1 students also agreed, with an mean response of 3.10 (± 0.94). PT and PY2 tended to fall just below “Agree,” with means of 2.92 (± 0.76) and 2.96 (± 0.82), respectively. A boxplot of responses separated by level of training can be seen in the in Figure 4. Two linear regression models were performed (see Appendix C). Regression 1 was used to examine whether the usefulness of digital recording was associated with year in training/experience as a clinician, controlling for demographic characteristics. No associations were found to be significant.
Figure 4
Boxplot of “review useful tool” and level of experience. Usefulness rating scale: 4 = strongly agree; 3 = agree; 2 = neutral; 1 = disagree; 0 = strongly disagree.
The second regression examined the relationship between level of focus in video review and year in training/experiences as a clinician. All students reported lower average levels of focus than licensed PTs, but only PY2s were significantly lower, by 0.69 points. There was no significant difference in levels of focus by gender.
On average, 1st year (PY1) students identified 2.25 (±1.24) distinct observations of actions or behaviors (items) that the physical therapist did well in the recording. Items that the PYI group tended to focus on more were about the approach and interaction with patient. The average gradually increased by level of training (PY2 = 2.41 ± 1.43, PY3 = 2.63 ± 1.52). Licensed physical therapists identified 3.58 (±1.70) items that the physical therapist did well in the recording. Example of items included comments concerning the PT’s skill with inquiry, explanation, screening, analysis, and assessment (Table 4).
Table 4
| Level of experience | Item count for what the PT did well in the recording (Mean counts ± SD) | Themes | Example quote from narrative responses |
|---|---|---|---|
| PY 1 | 2.25 ± 1.24 | Inquiry Explanation |
PY1c: “Asked how the patient would like to be referred to. Restated what the patient reported to confirm accuracy. Warned patient about the experience of uncomfortable sensations throughout the various movements.” PY1k: “Explained what she was going to have him do and the reasoning behind it.” PY1bb: “She [PT] asked good questions. She did a good job learning about him [SP], how this affects his daily life and his goals.” |
| PY2 | 2.41 ± 1.43 | Inquiry Explanation Screening |
PY2a: “The PT explained all the steps well and ensured that the patient and her were on the same page throughout the examination.” PY2i:“She [PT] did a good job checking functional movement and mechanics with lifting. This gave her a good idea of what’s going on.” PY2k: “Screen for red flags, thorough exam questions, analysis of movements.” PY2u:” Screen red flags, ask about health history….” |
| PY3 | 2.63 ± 1.52 | Interaction Inquiry Screening |
PY3a: “She looked like she maintained good eye contact and sat at eye level with the patient during the interview.” PY3i: “She [PT] did a good job understanding the basics of the patient’s back pain--what makes it better, worse, when it started.” PY3o: “She[PT]asked appropriate questions to get a better understanding of the patient’s pain and examined multiple systems.” PY3v: “She asked further questions when the patient stated his stomach hurt from bending forward.” |
| PT | 3.58 ± 1.70 | Inquiry Screening Analysis Assessment |
PT1: “They [PT] asked all pertinent questions in an open manner. They [PT] maintained eye contact throughout. They [PT] provided the patient with an outline of what to expect with the session including that they [PT] would take notes.” PT8: “Noticed abnormal response to movement and performed a fairly comprehensive screen. Performed a movement analysis.” PT8: “Captured most of the data needed to understand patients complete ICF (activities, participation, current health condition). PT7: “She [PT] developed good rapport with the patient, she asked pertinent questions, but did not dwell on the history taking portion of the exam…” PT11: “She [PT] was able to establish most of the SINSS (Missed irritability).” PT19: “… observed a functional movement that was a primary complaint for the patient, responded on her feet to new info about abdominal pain and was able to respond to appropriate screening questions.” PT26: “She [PT] screened potential red flag symptoms as the patient had abdominal pain…” |
Counts, themes and example quotes from narrative responses to what the reviewer identified the PT in the recording doing well.
PY1, professional year 1, PY2, professional year 2, PY3, professional year 3, PT, licensed physical therapist.
Themes that emerged for potential improvement in the encounter included improving the subjective interview, refining the clinician-patient interaction, and the need for more thorough medical screening. First year (PY1) and second year (PY2) students identified 1.53 (±1.30) (1.63 ± 1.43) items, respectively, that the physical therapist could have done differently in the encounter with the SP. There was a noticeable increase in items and variation (2.96 ± 2.98) in 3rd year (PY3) students who have had more clinical experience through internships. Licensed physical therapists identified 3.69 (±2.56) items that the physical therapy could have done differently in the encounter (Table 5).
Table 5
| Level of experience | Item count for what the PT could have done better (Mean counts ± SD) | Themes | Example quote from narrative responses |
|---|---|---|---|
| PY 1 | 1.53 ± 1.30 | Inquiry Explanation |
PY1e: “I think she[PT]could have been better about her word choice in some scenarios, such as not apologizing when asking a patient to perform a needed test…” PY1h: “The PT asked several leading questions, and bounced around frequently.” PY1k: “Maybe explained a little more about what the tests are indicating after the results.” PY1aa: “Asked more about the pain the patient was feeling as they were doing the movements. Rate it, where is it, worse better same?” |
| PY2 | 1.63 ± 1.43 | Inquiry Rapport with patient Examination items/sequence |
PY2d: “Could have carried out conversation more after asking a question. Seemed to just go from one question to the next without having a conversation about an answer.” PY2i: “She [PT] could’ve checked passive ROM, accessory movement of lumbar spine and prone instability test.” PY2w: “Building a rapport with patient on personal experiences. Dig deeper into goals and activities that bring joy.” PY2bb: “The physical therapist should have created more rapport by making the patient comfortable, creating a relationship, and also doing more hands on examination tests.” |
| PY3 | 2.96 ± 2.98 | Inquiry Examination items/sequence |
PY3d: “I think that she should have asked the patient a few more questions regarding his abdominal pain, and performed an abdominal exam If she did not find anything, she could ask the patient to keep an eye on what he is eating for the next week to see if that does cause any pain changes.” PY3l: “I think the PT could have done a more thorough screen of the abdomen to rule out anything more sinister causing the patient’s back pain, especially after he mentioned the stomach pain.” PY3s: “I think they should have checked vitals after hx of HBP and w/ report of stomach pain.” |
| PT | 3.69 ± 2.56 | Sequencing Examination items Abdominal exam |
PT1: “The ROM sequencing was interesting to me. I would have started with flexion and extension first and then moved towards side-bending and rotation.” PT2: “Given this patient’s age, gender and medical history I would have added a screen of patient vitals, and added some red flag screen questions to the subjective section of the exam.” PT8: “Capture a bit more information to understand the irritability and stability of the presentation (though could be discovered in objective exam). Captured a bit more information to understand the patients’ ICF (environment, personal factors)…” PT9: “I think if she started with symptom mapping it would have saved her a lot of time and helped tailor her subjective to be more focused, it wasn’t until her objective exam she realized that the patient had stomach pain as well (that may or may not be related) and she did not ask about any LE sx, numbness/tingling. This is crucial information to acquire.” PT25: “She[PT] could have done more palpation. She [PT] could have measured range of motion. She could have asked more questions of type of pain.” PT26: “I feel she [PT] could have explored the abdominal pain a little more in depth with potential palpation, further questioning.” |
Counts, themes and example quotes from narrative responses to what the reviewer identified the PT in the recording could have done better.
Four clinicians and two PY3 students participated in the interviews. Transcripts from the interviews were independently reviewed by the primary and secondary authors. The authors held discussions following their review and agreed on three main themes that materialized from the interviews: the importance of instructions prior to recording review, a review of a patient encounter allows for and enhances self-reflection, and the importance of a rubric or guide concurrently in reviewing video. Themes and exemplar quotes can be found in Table 6.
Table 6
| Theme | Student or clinician | Example quote |
|---|---|---|
| Importance of instructions | PT5_7_2018 | “I followed the PI’s [principal investigator’s] instructions and prompts.” |
| Review of encounter allow for self-reflection | PY3_03-1986 | The recording “helped me see the flow and direction of subjective and how it focuses the next phases of the examination.” |
| Importance of a rubric or guide in reviewing video | PT7_19_2016 | “I had a pen, paper and rubric to take notes.” |
Themes and example quotes from interviews.
Discussion
Results from this study indicate that the majority of participants found that the digital recording was a useful tool for reflecting on their professional ability and development. However, a variety of approaches in the review process were found across groups, especially between clinicians and students. Students across groups used “fast speed” and “fast forward,” while clinicians appeared more likely to take notes. In general, all groups described being focused throughout the digital recording review; clinicians appeared to have more consistent focus compared to students. These findings align with previous research which found benefits in the use of video recordings to reflect on medical interventions in a neonatal intensive care unit (24). Observing another clinician’s encounter with a patient allows the opportunity for objective comparison, and self-identification of clinical strengths and areas for improvement.
A secondary purpose of the study was to explore how review of a digital recording of a standardized patient encounter varied by level of student training, and between students and expert clinicians. There were increases in the number of observable items identified and the degree of analysis across levels of experience. The smaller numbers and depth of responses in the early (PY1 & PY2) groups are consistent with their level of knowledge and training. The complexity of student analysis increased with training. For example, PY1 and PY2 students focused more on the PT-SP interactions than clinical skills; PY3 students identified a general need for improvement in examination items; and clinicians provided specific suggestions for the PT’s approach, such as sequencing of the clinical examination and specific tests/measures to rule-in a condition. However, the fact that all levels of students and practicing clinicians identified elements of what the clinician performed well and could improve in the recording suggests that a generalized recording can be useful across multiple levels of training. These findings indicate a complex and technical approach by clinicians in the analysis of reviewing a recording.
It is important to recognize that prior to viewing the digital recording, participants in the study were instructed to consider two questions: “What did the PT do well?” and “What would YOU have done differently?” which are a modification of the Plus-Delta approach to debriefing simulated encounters (18, 19). Dzara et al. outline the importance of session alignment to meet educational goals as one component of incorporating videos in medical education (17). A necessary element of andragogical instructional design is for the educator to provide instructions and goals for viewing the video to serve as a scaffold for learning. Providing context and objectives is a necessity to frame the context for the learner/viewer.
The idea of learning through the observation of others has been around for decades (25). The use of video as an effective tool for the viewer to observe, learn, and reflect in medical education is not well described in the literature. Recent research by Weingartner and colleagues found that premedical students have improved clinical skills by observing video recordings of standardized patient encounters (26). The results of our study indicate that physical therapy students and physical therapists can self-reflect on their own clinical ability while observing another clinician’s encounter. This study supports the work by Salminen et al. who found that the use of virtual patients can facilitate self-reflection in medical students (6).
This study supports the use of a digital recording to promote student and clinician reflection. However, there are limitations to this study. The data were from a single-site convenience sample, which may not accurately reflect the general physical therapy community, which restricts generalizability. Further, no validated survey tool met the needs for assessment of viewing the recording. The lack of a validated survey instrument limits the reliability and consistency of the reported results. The study would have been enhanced by having more participants for interviews to gather additional perspectives and increase generalizability. Lastly, the use of blinded researchers to analyze qualitative responses from the survey and interviews would have strengthened the study by minimizing bias in data interpretation and increasing internal validity.
As online learning tools and instructional use of digital recordings becomes more prevalent; video review can be a useful low-cost learning modality. In conclusion, findings from this study provide evidence to support the use of video recordings to promote student and clinician reflection. This study demonstrates that review of a digital recording of a standardized patient encounter can be used facilitate reflection in practicing physical therapists. Future research would benefit from broader sampling and incorporation of standardized survey instruments. The development of best practices in designing the learning experience, including guidelines for student reflection and self-assessment across medical and health professions trainees would be valuable. Specifically, the use of an explicit framework to review their recordings, and the usefulness of that framework to enhance reflection-on-action and growth as a clinician, should be explored.
Statements
Data availability statement
The datasets for this study are not provided as the participants of this study did not give written consent for public sharing of their data.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (COMIRB). The study was declared exempt (#23-0932). The study was conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
Author contributions
AKi: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AN-C: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SK-E: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AKu: Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AT: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge those individuals who participated in this study. We are grateful to the incredible team at the Center for Advancing Professional Excellence (CAPE) at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, especially Elshimaa Basha. We thank Melissa Darnell, DPT, and James “Pete” Peters for providing their time and expertise for the digital recording.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The authors declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2024.1516724/full#supplementary-material
References
1.
Emanuel EJ . The inevitable reimagining of medical education. JAMA. (2020) 323:1127–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.1227
2.
Bordes SJ Walker D Modica LJ Buckland J Sobering AK . Towards the optimal use of video recordings to support the flipped classroom in medical school basic sciences education. Med Educ Online. (2021) 26:1841406. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2020.1841406
3.
Simpson D Marcdante K Souza KH Anderson A Holmboe E . Job roles of the 2025 medical educator. J Grad Med Educ. (2018) 10:243–6. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-18-00253.1
4.
Ellaway R Poulton T Fors U McGee JB Albright S . Building a virtual patient commons. Med Teach. (2008) 30:170–4. doi: 10.1080/01421590701874074
5.
Noverati N Naro GR Fischer RJ Thompson BM . Using video and virtual patients in problem-based learning: a scoping review. Med Sci Educ. (2020) 30:1685–91. doi: 10.1007/s40670-020-01108-7
6.
Salminen H Zary N Björklund K Toth-Pal E Leanderson C . Virtual patients in primary care: developing a reusable model that fosters reflective practice and clinical reasoning. J Med Internet Res. (2014) 16:e3. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2616
7.
Scherer LA Chang MC Meredith JW Battistella FD . Videotape review leads to rapid and sustained learning. Am J Surg. (2003) 185:516–20. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9610(03)00062-X
8.
Ebert JG Anderson JR Taylor LF . Enhancing reflective practice of student physical therapists through video-assisted self and peer-assessment: a pilot study. Int J Teach Learn High Educ. (2020) 32:31–8.
9.
Kachingwe AF Phillips B Beling J . Videotaping practical Examinations in Physical Therapist Education: does it Foster student performance, self-assessment, professionalism, and improve instructor grading?J Phys Ther Educ. (2015) 29:25–33. doi: 10.1097/00001416-201529010-00006
10.
Seif GA Brown D . Video-recorded simulated patient interactions: can they help develop clinical and communication skills in today’s learning environment?J Allied Health. (2013) 42:e37–44. PMID:
11.
Kinney AE Nordon-Craft A Kardong-Edgren S Thompson A . Enhanced learning using digital recordings with integrated standardized patient examinations (ISPEs) in physical therapy education: a qualitative pilot study. Educ Sci. (2023) 13:948. doi: 10.3390/educsci13090948
12.
Creswell JW Poth CN . Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. 4th ed. Los Angeles: Sage (2018).
13.
Harris PA Taylor R Thielke R Payne J Gonzalez N Conde JG . Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. (2009) 42:377–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
14.
Harris PA Taylor R Minor BL Elliott V Fernandez M O’Neal L et al . The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. (2019) 95:103208. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
15.
Watts PI McDermott DS Alinier G Charnetski M Ludlow J Horsley E et al . Healthcare simulation standards of best practiceTM simulation design. Clin Simul Nurs. (2021) 58:14–21. doi: 10.1016/j.ecns.2021.08.009
16.
Berg R Brand A Grant J Kirk J Zimmermann T . Leveraging recorded mini-lectures to increase student learning. Online Classr. (2014) 14:5–8.
17.
Dzara K Chen DT Haidet P Murray H Tackett S Chisolm MS . The effective use of videos in medical education. Acad Med. (2020) 95:970. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003056
18.
Sawyer T Eppich W Brett-Fleegler M Grant V Cheng A . More than one way to debrief: a critical review of healthcare simulation debriefing methods. Simul Healthc. (2016) 11:209–17. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000148
19.
Cheng A Eppich W Epps C Kolbe M Meguerdichian M Grant V . Embracing informed learner self-assessment during debriefing: the art of plus-delta. Adv Simul (Lond). (2021) 6:22. doi: 10.1186/s41077-021-00173-1
20.
Archibald MM Ambagtsheer RC Casey MG Lawless M . Using zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. Int J Qual Methods. (2019) 18:1609406919874596. doi: 10.1177/1609406919874596
21.
R Development Core Team . R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2010).
22.
Braun V Clarke V . Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. (2006) 3:77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
23.
O’Brien BC Harris IB Beckman TJ Reed DA Cook DA . Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. (2014) 89:1245–51. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
24.
Heesters V Witlox R van Zanten HA Jansen SJ Visser R Heijstek V et al . Video recording emergency care and video-reflection to improve patient care; a narrative review and case-study of a neonatal intensive care unit. Front Pediatr. (2022) 10:931055. doi: 10.3389/fped.2022.931055
25.
Bandura A Walters RH . Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston (1963).
26.
Weingartner LA Noonan EJ Shaw MA Fuselier L . Engaging premedical students in medical education research: benefits of clinical skills observation studies. Acad Med. (2023) 98:S157–64. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005361
Summary
Keywords
digital recording, health professions education, physical therapy, standardized patients, simulation, reflection
Citation
Kinney A, Nordon-Craft A, Kardong-Edgren S, Kumar A and Thompson A (2025) Digital recordings of a clinical encounter facilitate reflection in physical therapy students and clinicians. Front. Med. 11:1516724. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1516724
Received
24 October 2024
Accepted
26 December 2024
Published
11 March 2025
Volume
11 - 2024
Edited by
Ardi Findyartini, University of Indonesia, Indonesia
Reviewed by
Maria García Escudero, Catholic University of Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Spain
Hossam Hamdy, Gulf Medical University, United Arab Emirates
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Kinney, Nordon-Craft, Kardong-Edgren, Kumar and Thompson.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Anthony Kinney, anthony.kinney@cuanschutz.edu
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.