Feedback parameters | SNAPPS group | Control group | P value* |
---|---|---|---|
Concisely covered all aspects of history taking | 4 (4–4) | 4 (2–4) | 0.013 |
Performed all the steps of general examination | 4 (4–4) | 4 (3–4) | 0.096 |
Systemic examination findings were relevant and in accordance with history | 4 (3–4) | 4 (4–4) | 0.376 |
Sequencing and formulation of differential diagnosis were well organized | 3 (2–3) | 2 (2–3) | 0.624 |
Hypothesis of differential diagnosis matching with history and examination | 3 (2–4) | 2 (2–4) | 0.893 |
Able to speak out all the difficulties faced while case discussion | 4 (4–4) | 4 (3–4) | 0.140 |
Narration of patient management plan – realistic and appropriate to differential diagnosis | 3 (2–4) | 3 (3–4) | 0.601 |
Identified sufficient case based learning issues for self study | 4 (4–4) | 3 (2–4) | < 0.01 |
Time management during case presentations | 3 (2–3) | 3 (3–4) | 0.057 |
Uniformity and skills of presentation | 3 (3–3) | 3 (3–4) | 0.072 |
Overall rating of case presentation (Mean ± SD) | 5.52 ± 1.58 | 5.48 ± 1.12 | t = 0.099** p = 0.921 |