Assessing the clinical skills of interns and stagers in the department of obstetrics and gynecology using Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) method and satisfaction level of learners and examiners

Background and Objectives: Evaluation of clinical skills of intern and stager students is one of the most important tasks of clinical faculty members. One of the methods of assessment is direct observation of procedural skills. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical skills of interns and stagers in department of obstetrics and gynecology using the Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) method. Methods: This is a cross-sectional descriptive-analytical study. 60 interns and stagers of the department of obstetrics and gynecology were selected by census method. According to the opinions of faculty members of medical universities, among the main procedures of women's departments, 11 procedures were selected for testing materials and a checklist for their evaluation was prepared. The student was observed by the examiner during the procedure in the actual work environment and the results were recorded according to a structured checklist and presented in an objective setting environment. The content validity of the checklist was approved by faculty members of obstetrics and gynecology. Reliability was calculated as 85% based on Cronbach's alpha. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 18 and Chi-square and independent t-test were used at a significance level of 0.05.   Results: A total of 60 students in the department of obstetrics and gynecology were evaluated by this method. The evaluation indicators were as expected in most cases at all stations. The highest expected and above expected cases were related to communication skills and requesting assistance if needed; while most below expected cases were related to knowledge of the indications, anatomy, and procedure’s techniques. The most disadvantage mentioned by the students was the technical ability and the most advantage was requesting help if needed. There was a significant difference between the mean score of satisfaction in learners (5.3 ± 2.92) and the mean score of satisfaction in the examiners (8.85 ± 0.93) (p> 0.05). Conclusion: Due to the higher than expected value of students' clinical skills, the use of this method is not only an incentive for learning but also because the method and content of the test are directly related to clinical performance, it can direct efforts to learning.