Identification of essential topics and procedural skills for inclusion in a contextualised undergraduate anaesthesia and critical care clerkship in Rwanda: results of a modified Delphi process.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH BMC Medical Education Pub Date : 2025-04-07 DOI:10.1186/s12909-025-07046-5
Callum Forbes, Bruce Mutembe Nzobele, Barnabas T Alayande, Françoise Nizeyimana, Jean Paul Mvukiyehe, Jocelyn M Booth, Selam Degu Woldegiorgis, Benoucheca Pierre, James Littlejohn, Sheida Tabaie, Abebe Bekele, Craig D McClain, Gaston Nyirigira
{"title":"Identification of essential topics and procedural skills for inclusion in a contextualised undergraduate anaesthesia and critical care clerkship in Rwanda: results of a modified Delphi process.","authors":"Callum Forbes, Bruce Mutembe Nzobele, Barnabas T Alayande, Françoise Nizeyimana, Jean Paul Mvukiyehe, Jocelyn M Booth, Selam Degu Woldegiorgis, Benoucheca Pierre, James Littlejohn, Sheida Tabaie, Abebe Bekele, Craig D McClain, Gaston Nyirigira","doi":"10.1186/s12909-025-07046-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Low anaesthesia workforce numbers contribute to shortfalls in access to surgical care globally. Investment in contextualised education and training can help address this issue by inspiring graduates to enter into training and imparting important knowledge and skills to non-specialists. We undertook a modified Delphi study to identify physician anaesthesiologist consensus on themes, topics, and skills for inclusion in undergraduate anaesthesia and critical care (ACC) medical school curricula in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and Rwanda.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A list of ACC topics/skills was compiled through grey literature review, guiding survey development for a 3-round Delphi process. The first two rounds solicited responses from physician anaesthesiologists across SSA. The final round included only Rwandan physician anaesthesiologists. Respondents rated topics/skills on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (\"exclude from the curriculum\") through 4 (\"essential for inclusion\"). Item-level Content Validity Index (I-CVI, the proportion of respondents rating a topic/skill as 3 or 4) was used for stratification. A first-round I-CVI threshold of 80% and 70% for subsequent rounds was used to define consensus for inclusion. Excluded topics/skills were considered for re-inclusion in subsequent rounds; 50% agreement was set as threshold for re-inclusion. The first round also sought consensus regarding aims, objectives, and delivery methodology.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 147 topics/skills across 12 domains were identified for initial survey inclusion. Fifty-one respondents from 12 countries completed round one. Ninety-six (65.3%) topics/skills met consensus threshold. One additional skill (\"pain assessment\") was incorporated into round two following suggestions from respondents. The clerkship outcome ranked as most important and achievable was to 'inspire students to undertake anaesthesia specialty training' (n = 25, 49.0% and n = 26, 51.0% respectively). Thirty-six respondents from 12 countries completed round two. Eighty (82.5%) topics/skills met consensus threshold. Seventeen Rwandan specialists completed round three. Seventy-eight (97.5%) topics/skills met consensus threshold. From 67 previously excluded topics/skills, 14 (20.9%) met re-inclusion threshold.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>A modified Delphi process identified 92 essential topics/skills for inclusion in a Rwandan undergraduate ACC clerkship. Experts prioritised 'inspiring students' over 'achieving clinical competence' for undergraduates. A similar Delphi approach may be useful for educational content development in other settings across the African continent and for other specialties.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Not applicable (study described is not a clinical trial). UGHE IRB protocol number: 194.</p>","PeriodicalId":51234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Education","volume":"25 1","pages":"489"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11974015/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07046-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Low anaesthesia workforce numbers contribute to shortfalls in access to surgical care globally. Investment in contextualised education and training can help address this issue by inspiring graduates to enter into training and imparting important knowledge and skills to non-specialists. We undertook a modified Delphi study to identify physician anaesthesiologist consensus on themes, topics, and skills for inclusion in undergraduate anaesthesia and critical care (ACC) medical school curricula in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and Rwanda.

Methods: A list of ACC topics/skills was compiled through grey literature review, guiding survey development for a 3-round Delphi process. The first two rounds solicited responses from physician anaesthesiologists across SSA. The final round included only Rwandan physician anaesthesiologists. Respondents rated topics/skills on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 ("exclude from the curriculum") through 4 ("essential for inclusion"). Item-level Content Validity Index (I-CVI, the proportion of respondents rating a topic/skill as 3 or 4) was used for stratification. A first-round I-CVI threshold of 80% and 70% for subsequent rounds was used to define consensus for inclusion. Excluded topics/skills were considered for re-inclusion in subsequent rounds; 50% agreement was set as threshold for re-inclusion. The first round also sought consensus regarding aims, objectives, and delivery methodology.

Results: A total of 147 topics/skills across 12 domains were identified for initial survey inclusion. Fifty-one respondents from 12 countries completed round one. Ninety-six (65.3%) topics/skills met consensus threshold. One additional skill ("pain assessment") was incorporated into round two following suggestions from respondents. The clerkship outcome ranked as most important and achievable was to 'inspire students to undertake anaesthesia specialty training' (n = 25, 49.0% and n = 26, 51.0% respectively). Thirty-six respondents from 12 countries completed round two. Eighty (82.5%) topics/skills met consensus threshold. Seventeen Rwandan specialists completed round three. Seventy-eight (97.5%) topics/skills met consensus threshold. From 67 previously excluded topics/skills, 14 (20.9%) met re-inclusion threshold.

Discussion and conclusion: A modified Delphi process identified 92 essential topics/skills for inclusion in a Rwandan undergraduate ACC clerkship. Experts prioritised 'inspiring students' over 'achieving clinical competence' for undergraduates. A similar Delphi approach may be useful for educational content development in other settings across the African continent and for other specialties.

Trial registration: Not applicable (study described is not a clinical trial). UGHE IRB protocol number: 194.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
确定卢旺达麻醉与危重症护理本科生临床实习的基本主题和程序技能:改良德尔菲程序的结果。
导言:麻醉劳动力数量少导致全球获得外科护理的不足。投资于情境化的教育和培训,可以激励毕业生参加培训,并向非专业人士传授重要的知识和技能,从而帮助解决这一问题。我们进行了一项改进的德尔菲研究,以确定麻醉医师对主题、主题和技能的共识,以便将其纳入撒哈拉以南非洲(SSA)和卢旺达的本科麻醉和重症监护(ACC)医学院课程。方法:通过灰色文献回顾编制ACC主题/技能列表,指导调查开展3轮德尔菲法。前两轮征集了SSA麻醉医师的反馈。最后一轮只有卢旺达内科麻醉师参加。受访者对主题/技能进行4分李克特评分,从1(“排除在课程之外”)到4(“必不可少的包括”)。项目水平的内容效度指数(I-CVI,受访者将主题/技能评为3或4的比例)用于分层。第一轮I-CVI阈值为80%,随后一轮为70%,用于确定纳入的共识。被排除的主题/技能将被考虑在后续的轮次中重新纳入;50%的同意被设定为重新纳入的门槛。第一轮还就目标、目标和交付方法寻求共识。结果:在最初的调查中,共有12个领域的147个主题/技能被确定。来自12个国家的51名受访者完成了第一轮调查。96个(65.3%)主题/技能达到共识阈值。一项额外的技能(“疼痛评估”)被纳入第二轮根据受访者的建议。“激励学生接受麻醉专业培训”被列为最重要和可实现的实习结果(n = 25、49.0%和n = 26、51.0%)。来自12个国家的36名受访者完成了第二轮调查。80个(82.5%)主题/技能符合共识阈值。17名卢旺达专家完成了第三轮比赛。78个(97.5%)主题/技能达到共识阈值。在67个先前被排除的主题/技能中,14个(20.9%)达到了重新纳入的门槛。讨论和结论:经过修改的德尔菲程序确定了卢旺达本科行政协调会职员的92个基本主题/技能。对于本科生来说,专家们更重视“激励学生”,而不是“获得临床能力”。类似的德尔菲方法可能对整个非洲大陆的其他设置和其他专业的教育内容开发有用。试验注册:不适用(所描述的研究不是临床试验)。UGHE IRB协议号:194。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Education
BMC Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
795
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Education is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the training of healthcare professionals, including undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education. The journal has a special focus on curriculum development, evaluations of performance, assessment of training needs and evidence-based medicine.
期刊最新文献
Experiential music therapy in cultivating medial humanistic qualities for medical education: a qualitative analysis based on experiential learning theory. Skinner's programmed instruction improves diabetes knowledge and skills of undergraduate nursing students: a randomised controlled trial. The CII-care framework: a contextual adaptation and validation of entrecomp for intrapreneurial and innovative competencies in healthcare- a mixed-methods study in flanders. Impact of peer assessment on lecture quality and student learning outcomes in undergraduate medical education: a quasi-experimental study. Development of an entry-level physiotherapy program in a low-resource setting: an innovative model in Tajikistan.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1