Table 3 EAP vs SOAP head-to-head for all respondents who experienced both formatsa
From: Comparing oral case presentation formats on internal medicine inpatient rounds: a survey study
Students (n = 24) | Residents (n = 35) | Total (n = 59) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Assessment Domain | EAP | SOAP | P-value | EAP | SOAP | P-value | EAP | SOAP | P-value |
Allowed you to adequately convey your thought process | 4.50 | 4.04 | 0.07 | 4.54 | 3.89 | 0.003 | 4.53 | 3.95 | < .001 |
Allowed adequate time for discussion of the patient’s subjective experience | 4.04 | 4.13 | 0.69 | 4.34 | 3.89 | 0.02 | 4.22 | 3.98 | 0.17 |
Encouraged you to distill pertinent information in your presentation | 4.67 | 3.13 | < .001 | 4.60 | 3.20 | < .001 | 4.63 | 3.17 | < .001 |
Encouraged you to integrate information from the history, exam, and studies in developing an assessment and plan | 4.67 | 3.13 | < .001 | 4.51 | 3.43 | < .001 | 4.58 | 3.31 | < .001 |
Encouraged you to focus on your assessment and plan | 4.63 | 3.17 | < .001 | 4.66 | 2.97 | < .001 | 4.64 | 3.05 | < .001 |
Helped you learn from your own patients | 4.25 | 3.88 | 0.09 | 4.23 | 3.71 | 0.02 | 4.24 | 3.78 | 0.003 |
Helped you learn from your peers | 4.13 | 3.58 | 0.01 | 4.09 | 3.57 | 0.01 | 4.10 | 3.58 | < .001 |
Is effective in advancing patient care | 4.42 | 3.83 | 0.02 | 4.23 | 3.63 | 0.01 | 4.31 | 3.71 | < .001 |
Is time-efficient | 4.46 | 2.58 | < .001 | 4.34 | 2.60 | < .001 | 4.39 | 2.59 | < .001 |
Is easy to use | 3.88 | 4.04 | 0.55 | 4.00 | 3.82 | 0.62 | 3.95 | 3.91 | 0.98 |