Skip to content

Session 3 - OSCE Dashbord & Data Handling

Date: March 10, 2026 Presenter: Tom Wirtz

🎥 Watch Recording

▶️ Launch Browser

📝 Transcript

🧠 AI Summary

Here is a concise, high-signal summary of this recording session:

Session Summary — OSCE Dashboard & Data Handling

This meeting focused on how OSCE assessments (simulated competency exams) are currently structured, tracked, and inconsistently integrated into the dashboard system.

Core Purpose of OSCE:

  • Used to assess student competency in non-clinical (simulated) scenarios.
  • Originally introduced to address gaps identified during accreditation reviews.

Key Issues Identified

1. Lack of Reliable Data Pipeline

  • Initial approach pulled data from D2L quizzes, but:

  • Grading inconsistencies (manual grading, delays).

  • Students disputing scores.
  • Result: the automated pipeline was abandoned after limited use.

2. Dashboard Is Not a System of Record

  • The dashboard displays data but is not a reliable long-term audit source.
  • Accreditation requires historically accurate, traceable records, which are currently fragmented.

3. Inconsistent Faculty Processes

  • Faculty sometimes:

  • Delay reporting results.

  • Request bulk “mark everyone complete” actions.
  • This creates data integrity risks, especially for accreditation validation.

4. Mixing Clinical and Non-Clinical Measures

  • OSCE (simulated) assessments are sometimes used to compensate for missing clinical experiences, but:

  • These are fundamentally different measures.

  • The system does not clearly distinguish or reconcile them.

Current / Proposed Approaches

Option A — D2L-Based (Original)

  • Pull quiz scores and infer pass/fail.
  • ❌ Not reliable due to grading and timing issues.

Option B — Manual Entry via BSC Master (Preferred Direction)

  • Staff enter:

  • Student ID

  • Assessment type (OSCE)
  • Date
  • Pass/fail
  • Data flows into ETL and persists long-term.
  • ✅ Provides audit-ready historical record.

Architectural Insight (Your Domain)

There is a clear underlying tension:

The system lacks a single authoritative source of truth for assessment events.

What exists today:

  • D2L → transient, inconsistent
  • Dashboard → presentation layer only
  • Spreadsheets / ad hoc entry → fragmented persistence

What is needed:

  • A normalized, durable assessment record system
  • Clear ownership (likely via Dr. Talley / assessment leadership)

  • Explicit modeling of:

  • Clinical vs simulated (OSCE)

  • Primary vs compensatory assessments

Closing Position of the Session

  • No final solution implemented yet.

  • Agreement that:

  • The problem is not just technical, but process + ownership driven.

  • A cleaner, controlled data-entry + persistence model is likely required.
  • You (Cash) will review and follow up with questions after rewatching.

One-Line Takeaway

The session exposed that OSCE tracking is currently process-fragile, technically inconsistent, and not accreditation-safe, and needs a formalized system-of-record architecture to stabilize it.