Feedback parameters | SNAPPS group | Control group | P value* |
---|---|---|---|
Concisely covered all aspects of history taking | 4 (4–5) | 4 (2–5) | 0.039 |
Performed all the steps of general examination | 4 (4–5) | 4 (2–4) | < 0.01 |
Systemic examination findings were relevant and in accordance with history | 4 (4–5) | 4 (3–4) | < 0.01 |
Sequencing and formulation of differential diagnosis were well organized | 4 (2–4) | 2 (1–4) | < 0.01 |
Hypothesis of differential diagnosis matching with history and examination | 4 (2–4) | 1 (1–2) | < 0.01 |
Able to speak out all the difficulties faced while case discussion | 4 (4–5) | 2 (2–4) | < 0.01 |
Narration of patient management plan – realistic and appropriate to differential diagnosis | 5 (4–5) | 4 (3–4) | < 0.01 |
Identified sufficient case based learning issues for self study | 4 (4–5) | 2 (1–4) | < 0.01 |
Time management during case presentations | 5 (4–5) | 3 (2–4) | < 0.01 |
Uniformity and skills of presentation | 4 (4–4) | 4 (3–4) | 0.138 |
Overall rating of case presentation (Mean ± SD) | 6.7 ± 1.46 | 5.3 ± 1.75 | t = 3.20** p = 0.002 |