As a community-based medical school which recruited faculty preceptors new to teaching, we sought to create objective assessments for fourth-year surgery experiences via administration of an oral exam. Students provided three authentic cases, which faculty used as a springboard to ascertain student proficiency in five entrustable professional activities: 1-oral presentation, 2-recognition of urgency/instability, 3-calling consults, 4-transitions of care, 5-informed consent. We present proof-of-concept and analysis of student case submissions.

Twenty-seven student submissions (79 cases in total) were evaluated for case complexity, level-appropriateness, and an estimation of the ability to conduct a quality exam based on the information provided (subjective measures). Objective metrics included word count, instruction adherence, inclusion of figures/captions. A resident-in-training rated cases via the same metrics. In-examination data was separately culled.

The average word count was 281.70 (SD 140.23; range 40–743). Figures were included in 26.1% of cases. Faculty raters scored 29.0% as low-complexity, 37.7% medium-complexity, and 33.3% high-complexity. Raters felt 62.3% of cases provided enough information to conduct a quality exam. The majority of cases submitted (65.2%) were level-appropriate or higher. The resident rater scored cases more favorably than surgeons (Cohen's kappa of −0.5), suggesting low inter-rater agreement between those of differing experience levels.

Student's case submissions lessened faculty burden and provided assessors with adequate information to deliver a quality exam to assess proficiency in clinical skills essential for residency. Cases demonstrated sufficient complexity and level-appropriateness. The request to correlate case rating with exam performance is under review by our institution's assessment office. Near-peer tutoring by resident alumni is a program under development.