This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Medical Education, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mededu.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
The COVID-19 pandemic caused a major disruption in the health care sector with increased workload and the need for new staff to assist with screening and vaccination tasks. Within this context, teaching medical students to perform intramuscular injections and nasal swabs could help address workforce needs. Although several recent studies discuss medical students’ role and integration in clinical activities during the pandemic, knowledge gaps exist concerning their role and potential benefit in designing and leading teaching activities during this period.
The aim of our study was to prospectively assess the impact in terms of confidence, cognitive knowledge, and perceived satisfaction of a student-teacher–designed educational activity consisting of nasopharyngeal swabs and intramuscular injections for the training of second-year medical students in the Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Switzerland.
This was a mixed methods pre-post surveys and satisfaction survey study. Activities were designed using evidence-based teaching methodologies based on the SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and timely) criteria. All second-year medical students who did not participate in the activity’s old format were recruited unless they explicitly stated that they wanted to opt out. Pre-post activity surveys were designed to assess perception of confidence and cognitive knowledge. An additional survey was designed to assess satisfaction in the mentioned activities. Instructional design was blended with a presession e-learning activity and a 2-hour practice session with simulators.
Between December 13, 2021, and January 25, 2022, a total of 108 second-year medical students were recruited; 82 (75.9%) students participated in the preactivity survey and 73 (67.6%) in the postactivity survey. Students’ confidence in performing intramuscular injections and nasal swabs significantly increased on a 5-point Likert scale for both procedures—from 3.31 (SD 1.23) and 3.59 (SD 1.13) before the activity to 4.45 (SD 0.62) and 4.32 (SD 0.76) after the activity (
Student-teacher–based blended activities for training novice medical students in commonly performed procedural skills seem effective for increasing their confidence and cognitive knowledge and should be further integrated within a medical school curriculum. Blended learning instructional design increases students’ satisfaction about clinical competency activities. Future research should elucidate the impact of student-teacher–designed and student-teacher–led educational activities.
The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on health care delivery and caused important disruptions to medical education and training. These disruptions led to the realization of the major importance of clinical competency training at the pregraduate level, which is commonly based on in-person teaching activities and practical practice with peers on standardized and real patients. Access to all of these activities was restricted during most of the waves of the pandemic [
However, clinical competencies require in-person teaching activities and practice, as mastering these skills is important for increasing students’ confidence to perform procedural skills and ensure patients’ safety [
The COVID-19 pandemic has put health systems worldwide under exceptional pressure and worsened an already existing shortage in medical staff [
Within this context, teaching medical students to perform intramuscular injections and nasal swabs was a way to address this urgent need. However, as clinical medical educators were tied up in clinical activities related to the pandemic [
Although several recent studies discuss medical students’ role and integration in clinical activities during the pandemic, knowledge gaps exist concerning their role and potential benefit in designing and leading teaching activities during this period [
Ethics exemption was received by the Geneva Canton’s ethics committee as the project is outside the field of Human Research as described in the Federal Act on Research involving Human Beings. The exemption ID was REQ-2022-00453.
The medical school of the University of Geneva provides a 6-year medical curriculum. The first 3 years are considered preclinical with the main concentration on basic sciences, anatomy, physiology, and pathology. Teaching activities are for the most part conveyed in a problem-based learning instructional design. Nevertheless, the clinical competencies education starts from the second year with more than 80 educational activities and 5 formative assessments with standardized patients, with the goal of connecting scientific elements to clinical practice and preparing students for their clinical practice.
The medical school is affiliated with the Geneva University hospitals, which is the largest hospital in Switzerland and serves a regional population of more than 500,000 people. During the first 4 waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, the hospital handled more than 90% of the regional urgent and inpatient COVID cases. Medical students, as a regional policy, took active part in COVID-19–related care in different medical wards. Within this context, the mission of training novice medical students for nasopharyngeal swabs and intramuscular injections was given to the clinical competencies program team by the medical directors of the hospital and faculty with the purpose of increasing the potential workforce and alleviating pressure from the system.
This study included second-year medical students from the Faculty of Medicine in the University of Geneva, Switzerland. We excluded those who had already participated in the activity’s old instructional design and those who had explicitly stated they wanted to opt out of the study. The educational activities were mandatory, as it is a part of the regular medical school’s curriculum, and all eligible students were requested to participate. However, the participation in this study was on a voluntary basis and any student had the ability to opt out at any given moment. With regard to the transfer of knowledge to clinical practice, the participation in the screening and vaccination activities was on a voluntary basis, coordinated by the medical directorate of the hospital, and there were no sanctions imposed on the students.
Fifteen medical students in their fourth, fifth, or sixth year of medical school are recruited each year to conduct 2 hours of practical training sessions for second-year and third-year medical students in the medical faculty of the University of Geneva. Student-teachers are recruited through a yearly call for applications. The selection process for student-teachers is done by the clinical competencies program’s faculty members and is based on academic achievements, teaching experience, and motivation. Each training session concerns the clinical competencies of a specific body system or a procedural skill. Before each session, including this study’s activities, student-teachers are trained by a senior specialist concerning the seminar’s specific theme.
The clinical competencies program in our institution is run by a group of senior experts in different clinical domains. Each expert is responsible for all the training materials and activities concerning his/her domain of expertise (eg, Cardiology, Respiratory Medicine, Neurology). All the activities in our study were coordinated by IZ. Each expert will conduct a 2-hour yearly training session targeted at student-teachers to prepare them for their own teaching activities with novice students. Within the context of this study’s activity and due to time restrictions, 2 senior experts provided a 1-hour training for student-teachers and were present as backup during the activity. The activity’s material and support were designed and drafted by the student-teachers themselves with the supervision of the program’s coordinator IZ.
Instructional design was blended with presession e-learning and video-based self-directed learning tasks followed by a 2-hour in-person practice session in small groups of 4-6 students using simulators. The time for the completion of presession tasks was estimated to be 60 minutes. During the practice session, 1 hour was dedicated to nasopharyngeal swab collection and 1 hour was focused on intramuscular injection. This study, including the training session and pre-post surveys, was conducted between December 13, 2021, and January 25, 2022. The learning objectives for the activity were drafted based on the SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and timely) criteria [
Learning objectives of the nasopharyngeal swab activity.
Number | Learning objectives |
1 | Cite the most frequent clinical situations indicating the performance of a nasopharyngeal swab. |
2 | List the main indications to perform a nasopharyngeal swab. |
3 | List the main contraindications to perform a nasopharyngeal swab. |
4 | Identify the anatomical landmarks on the dedicated model. |
5 | Cite the standardized sequence for performing a nasopharyngeal swab. |
6 | Prepare the personal protective equipment necessary to perform a nasopharyngeal swab. |
7 | Perform a nasopharyngeal swab on the mannequin or on a patient: install the patient, name the tube with the patient’s label, introduce the flexible swab into the nasal duct until it reaches the nasopharynx and make 3 rotations, close the tube, and send it to the laboratory. |
Learning objectives of the intramuscular injection activity.
Number | Learning objectives |
1 | Cite the two most frequent clinical situations indicating the performance of an intramuscular injection (drug administration, vaccine). |
2 | List the main indications to perform an intramuscular injection. |
3 | List the main contraindications to perform an intramuscular injection. |
4 | Name the 3 main complications of an intramuscular injection (local hematoma, allergic reaction, injection site infection). |
5 | Identify the different injection sites (deltoid muscle, large gluteal muscle, vast external muscle) on the mannequin or on a peer student. |
6 | Prepare the material to perform an intramuscular injection. |
7 | Perform an intramuscular injection: install the patient, maintain asepsis during the procedure, prick the deltoid/gluteus maximus muscle ensuring no reflux before injecting, apply a protective dressing, and monitor. |
The e-learning module for the nasal swab was created using Rise Articulate 360 (Articulate Global Inc) [
Cognitive visual aids for the swab technique in the e-learning module.
An example of the quiz evaluation for the clinical activity in the e-learning module.
Random groups of 4-6 students were formed and led by student-teachers. The first 15 minutes were dedicated to discussing indications, contraindications, and hygiene measures for performing nasal swabs and intramuscular injections. This was followed by 10 minutes for demonstration of the procedural skill by the student-teacher, followed by dedicated time to perform the procedures on simulators under the supervision of the student-teacher.
No formal assessment was done. Participation in the activity qualified as a passing grade.
To assess students’ perceptions of confidence in performing nasopharyngeal swabs and intramuscular injections as well as cognitive knowledge concerning indications and contraindications for both procedures, faculty members designed and validated presurveys and postsurveys. Answers to all surveys were based on a 5-point Likert scale (1=not at all, 2=rather not, 3=I don’t know, 4=rather yes, 5=perfectly) with the last question being an open-ended question for general comments. The preactivity survey was sent a few days before the activity and the postactivity survey was sent on the following day after the activity with several reminders to ensure an acceptable participation rate. An additional survey was created to assess students’ satisfaction in the designed activities.
All students were given the opportunity to complete a 13-question web-based survey (
Satisfaction survey questions.
Number | Questions |
1 | I believe I acquired the learning objectives related to the nasopharyngeal swab and intramuscular injection. |
2 | The e-learning and simulation on the nasopharyngeal swab were effective and useful. |
3 | The e-learning on the nasopharyngeal swab was motivating and helped me to learn. |
4 | The e-learning combined with the simulation provided me with a variety of teaching methods allowing me to acquire the technical skills related to nasopharyngeal smear and intramuscular injection. |
5 | The practical training sessions on the nasopharyngeal smear and the intramuscular injection allowed me to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for my immersion in the clinical environment. |
6 | These practical training sessions on the nasopharyngeal swab and the intramuscular injection are relevant during my learning curriculum. |
7 | I know how to use this simulation to remember the important elements of both technical procedures in case I have to perform them in the future. |
8 | I will know where to find the necessary references if I have any doubts about my skills in performing a nasopharyngeal swab or an intramuscular injection. |
9 | The student-teacher provided me with appropriate resources and references when needed. |
10 | The way the student-teacher taught the simulation was adapted to my way of learning. |
11 | The student-teacher’s responsibility is to give me constructive feedback on the technical gestures of the nasopharyngeal swab and the intramuscular injection. |
12 | The e-learning and simulation on the nasopharyngeal swab were effective and useful. |
13 | The e-learning on the nasopharyngeal swab was motivating and helped me to learn. |
A mixed methods analysis was performed. Quantitative data were presented as mean (SD). We compared data between the 2 student groups by using the 2-sided
There were 192 eligible students. Out of them, 84 were excluded as they had participated in the activities in their old format. A total of 108 second-year medical students who met the inclusion criteria participated in both activities and were invited to answer the survey. Among them, 82 (75.9%) responded fully to the preactivity survey and 73 (67.6%) to the postactivity survey.
Students’ perception of knowing the indications for performing both procedures significantly increased from 2.7 (SD 1.24) to 4.15 (SD 0.83) for the nasopharyngeal swab (
Survey questions and responses on nasopharyngeal swab.
Question | Preactivity survey (n=82), mean (SD) | Postactivity survey (n=73), mean (SD) | |
I think I know all the indications for a nasopharyngeal swab. | 2.7 (1.24) | 4.15 (0.83) | <.001 |
I think I know all the contraindications for a nasopharyngeal swab. | 2.43 (1.1) | 3.71 (1.12) | <.001 |
I am confident in my ability to realize a nasopharyngeal swab. | 3.59 (1.13) | 4.32 (0.76) | <.001 |
Survey questions and responses on intramuscular injection.
Question | Preactivity survey (n=85), mean (SD) | Postactivity survey (n=74), mean (SD) | |
I think I know all the indications for an intramuscular injection. | 2.64 (1.1) | 4.34 (0.65) | <.001 |
I think I know all the contraindications for an intramuscular injection. | 2.49 (1.13) | 4.19 (0.63) | <.001 |
I am confident in my ability to realize an intramuscular injection. | 3.31 (1.23) | 4.45 (0.62) | <.001 |
A total of 56 (51.2%) novice students responded to the satisfaction survey sent after the activity. Attainment of activity’s learning objectives was rated at 4.38 (SD 0.62) (Figure S3 in
Regarding peer-to-peer teaching, providing constructive feedback on the procedural skills was considered a part of instructor’s roles, with a rate of 4.55 (SD 0.66) on a 5-point Likert scale. The student-teacher provided novice students appropriate resources and references when needed, with a mean of 3.75 (SD 0.98), and global appreciation of the student’s teaching was rated with a mean of 4.64 (SD 0.59). Novice medical students considered the instructional design of the activity to fit their study methods, with a rating of 4.57 (SD 0.68).
The topics raised in the open-ended answers could be summarized into 4 main themes (
Medical students’ open-ended answers (translated from French).
Theme | Illustrative quotes |
Activity relevance | … |
Instructional design | … |
Activity content | … |
Activity context | … |
Our study aimed to examine the impact, in terms of confidence, cognitive knowledge, and satisfaction, of a student-teacher–designed and student-teacher–led activity to train second-year medical students at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, for nasopharyngeal swab collection and intramuscular injections during the COVID-19 pandemic. We provide several important insights in this study. First, the activity that was both designed and led by advanced students significantly increased the perception of confidence as well as cognitive knowledge among novice peers. Second, high scores in the satisfaction survey seem to indicate students’ acceptability for student-teacher–led activities for the teaching of basic clinical competencies. Third, the blended instructional design seemed to be effective for attaining learning objectives, increasing motivation, and providing callback references.
Recent studies have focused on the role and integration of medical students in clinical activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there is a paucity of evidence concerning their potential role as teachers and instructional designers during and outside the context of the COVID-19 pandemic [
In addition, current body of evidence shows that student-teacher–led activities are beneficial not only to the learners by increasing their academic performance [
Blended learning is defined as a combination of traditional face-to-face learning and asynchronous or synchronous e-learning [
Our study has several limitations. First, the sample size was small but did represent all the potential exposed students to the activity. In fact, all second-year medical students who did not already participate in the activities in their old format were eligible to participate in both activities. Second, the observational nature of the study could decrease the confidence in our results. Third, we did not have a control group of learners who were taught the same competencies with a different instructional design; however, as to the novelty of the activity’s design and the specific context of the pandemic, such control might not have been possible to establish. Future comparisons of students’ perceptions for the same activities run by senior experts versus those run by student-teachers would be of value to further assess the impact of student-teachers’ integration in teaching. Finally, we did not correlate our results of confidence, cognitive knowledge, and satisfaction to a measurement of performance. The measurement of performance as with the use of standardized scores in the form of Objective Structured Clinical Examinations could indeed be of value to attest the impact of student-teacher–led activities on clinically relevant outcomes and students’ preparedness for clinical practice. The latter will provide quantitative and standardized data, which could increase the confidence in our results. Due to the logistical constraints in the pandemic context, this was outside of the scope of our study; however, this will be the subject of our future work. The strengths of our study include the fact that the activities and related surveys were based on validated evidence-based tools and instructional design. In addition, the prospective recruitment of participants as well as the high participation rate in all the surveys represent important strengths of our work.
The COVID-19 outbreak caused a major disruption within the health profession education and forced many institutions to reinvent teaching activities in a reality where the educational workforce was limited. Teaching of clinical competencies within this context represented an additional and unique challenge, as it required in-person teaching and introduction of new competencies to the curriculum. The use of student-teachers to lead and design such activities seemed to be effective to increase confidence and cognitive knowledge among medical students and resulted in high satisfaction ratings among learners. Blended learning design has the potential to increase learners’ satisfaction in clinical competency activities and provide more time for in-session practice. Designed teaching material could be introduced in postgraduate medical education and other medical disciplines. Further research should be performed to better understand the impact of student-teacher–led and designed activities on the quality of learners’ clinical competencies and their performance.
Survey results for nasopharyngeal swab and intramuscular injection activities.
specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and timely
We would like to thank the Johns Hopkins University’s Master of Education in the Health Professions program’s staff for their guidance and availability. IZ received financial support from the Hubert-Tuor Foundation to attend the Master of Education in the Health Professions program at Johns Hopkins University.
The data sets generated during or analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
JB wrote the manuscript, designed the activity, and performed literature review and statistical analysis. CT wrote the manuscript, designed the activity, and performed literature review and statistical analysis. IZ was the main investigator who wrote the manuscript, designed the activity and evaluation, and performed the literature review and the statistical analysis. ES critically revised the manuscript, assured clinical quality, and took part in activity and evaluation design and approval. MN critically revised the manuscript and took part in activity design and approval. GLS critically revised the manuscript and took part in activity design and approval. KB critically revised the manuscript and took part in activity design and approval.
None declared.