1312. Division Divided: Using Debate as an Educational Tool to Teach Evidence-Based Clinical Decision-Making
Session: Poster Abstract Session: Medical Education
Friday, October 5, 2018
Room: S Poster Hall

Background: In medical education, there has been a push to implement innovative teaching techniques that encourage critical thinking rather than just knowledge dissemination. Debate promotes critical thinking by challenging individuals to consider alternate viewpoints, which could make it an ideal format to review the evidence relevant to common clinical dilemmas in infectious diseases (ID). We describe a pilot of one such debate format in our ID fellowship program.

 

Methods: We reviewed literature regarding the effectiveness of ceftriaxone for outpatient antibiotic therapy (OPAT) in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) osteoarticular infections. The evidence was presented as a structured debate in place of our weekly case conference. Pre- and post-session surveys containing multiple choice questions and Likert items were administered to assess the impact of the debate on attendees’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices on this topic along with their attitudes toward the debate format. Differences between pre- and post-session surveys were analyzed using paired t-tests and McNemar’s test.

 

Results: At the first debate 33 residents, fellows, and faculty members were present, and 24 (73%) completed both the pre- and post-session surveys. Attendees demonstrated significant improvement between the pre- and post-session knowledge questions, which covered the following topics: study design of articles supporting ceftriaxone use (31% vs 62%, p=0.008), appropriate method to assess ceftriaxone susceptibility (64% vs 100%, p=0.004), and whether the inoculum effect applies to ceftriaxone (35% vs 77%, p=0.003). After the debate, attendees were more willing to use ceftriaxone (p=0.001) and felt more familiar with the literature (p<0.001). The post-session survey showed that individuals both enjoyed the format and found it effective (Figure 1). Most individuals stated that they were either extremely likely (85%) or likely (8%) to attend if this format was used again. Written comments included “strongly recommend continuing this format” and  “much better than regular case conference with more discussion and critical thinking.”

 

Conclusion: Debate appears to be an effective and enjoyable format to teach clinical controversies in ID.

Figure 1

 

Jennifer O. Spicer, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA and Varun K. Phadke, MD, Emory University, Atlanta, GA

Disclosures:

J. O. Spicer, None

V. K. Phadke, None

See more of: Medical Education
See more of: Poster Abstract Session

Findings in the abstracts are embargoed until 12:01 a.m. PDT, Wednesday Oct. 3rd with the exception of research findings presented at the IDWeek press conferences.