Table 3 Description of case complexity, satisfaction level of assessors and trainees and assessors’ feedback to PG trainees

Case Complexity, n (%)

Low

3 (3.8)

–

4 (19)

Medium

62 (78.5)

9 (69.2)

15 (76.2)

High

14 (17.7)

3 (30.7)

1 (4.7)

Mean Satisfaction level on a scale of 1–10

Assessors Response (n = 17)

8.23

8.15

7.77

Residents Response (n = 6)

8.42

8.38

8.08

Assessors Feedback to PG trainees (few narrative comments shown as examples)

Suggestions for Development

• Revise the diagnostic criteria for multiple myeloma

• Study Hartnups and Cystinuria

• Difference between cobalamine defect and deficiency unclear.

• How are internal and external quality controls practiced for pancreatic stool elastase testing?

• Discuss another case with hypoparathyroid

• Observe prolactin PEG precipitation procedure.

• Study NCEP-ATP-III guidelines for dyslipidemia

• Read qQuality control chapter from Kaplan

• Do some more literature review when handling complaints

• Read carryover study

• Study the peer group proficiency testing summary report

• Delineate the process of complaint handling

• Need to review the related reports prior to consultation

• Study the type of laboratory errors

• Read standard operating procedures of growth hormone insulin procedure again

• Will follow-up with you again on this complaint

• More practice required

• Read the sample receiving and processing policy

• Improve understanding of chromatogram when performing kidney stone analysis

• I will follow up with you as more practice is needed

• Did not check specimen integrity and was not aware of the suboptimal specimens policy in the laboratory

Anything especially good

• Knowledge of hypoglycemia cutoffs

• Case selection was good, complete history of patient was available

Knows the indication of urine amino acid testing

• Collaborative approach of learning used

• Understanding of chromatogram is good while reporting urine organic acid tests

• All biochemical indices relevant to the case were correctly calculated and interpreted

• Good communication skills

• Reliability in complaint solving

• Followed all institutional processes correctly

• Knows interpretation of method validation report

• Can teach junior residents the interpretation of proficiency testing

• Followed an emotional intelligence model for resolving queries

• Showed good confidence

• Proper personal protective equipment was worn

• Established good rapport with the patient

• Good communication skills

• Was able to demonstrate knowledge of the complications of procedure and corrective action

• Effectively utilized cognitive skills systematically for problem solving during procedure