[The success of medical continuing education. Methods of evaluation--possibilities, limits and future developments].

G Ollenschläger, M Klein-Lange
{"title":"[The success of medical continuing education. Methods of evaluation--possibilities, limits and future developments].","authors":"G Ollenschläger,&nbsp;M Klein-Lange","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The question, whether evaluation of continuing medical education (CME) is necessary, is discussed in Germany for several years. It is frequently criticized that the effects of continuing education on the medical practice and the quality of the patient care are hardly concrete. Evaluation is too often understood as a tool of external control rather than an instrument of self control and feedback for the teachers and organizers of CME events. The evaluation methods in use have many methodological shortcomings, i.e., lack of objectivity, reproducibility, feed back to the students, nearness to practice, and are therefore reason for the missing acceptance of the evaluation by physicians. Evaluation methods make sense if they contribute to efficient learning. They are supposed to aid in correctly assessing both the need and success of learning. These demands are currently most completely fulfilled by the Canadian \"Maintenance of Competence Program\" (MOCOMP), the applicability of MOCOMP in Germany is now proofed by the German chamber of physicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":23879,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur arztliche Fortbildung","volume":"90 8","pages":"753-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur arztliche Fortbildung","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The question, whether evaluation of continuing medical education (CME) is necessary, is discussed in Germany for several years. It is frequently criticized that the effects of continuing education on the medical practice and the quality of the patient care are hardly concrete. Evaluation is too often understood as a tool of external control rather than an instrument of self control and feedback for the teachers and organizers of CME events. The evaluation methods in use have many methodological shortcomings, i.e., lack of objectivity, reproducibility, feed back to the students, nearness to practice, and are therefore reason for the missing acceptance of the evaluation by physicians. Evaluation methods make sense if they contribute to efficient learning. They are supposed to aid in correctly assessing both the need and success of learning. These demands are currently most completely fulfilled by the Canadian "Maintenance of Competence Program" (MOCOMP), the applicability of MOCOMP in Germany is now proofed by the German chamber of physicians.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医学继续教育的成功。评估方法——可能性、限制和未来发展]。
是否有必要对继续医学教育(CME)进行评估,这个问题在德国已经讨论了好几年。人们经常批评继续教育对医疗实践和病人护理质量的影响几乎是具体的。评估常常被理解为外部控制的工具,而不是教师和持续教育活动组织者自我控制和反馈的工具。目前使用的评价方法在方法学上存在许多缺陷,如缺乏客观性、可重复性、对学生的反馈、不贴近实际,这是导致医生对评价不接受的原因。如果评估方法有助于有效的学习,那么它们是有意义的。他们应该帮助正确评估学习的需要和成功。这些要求目前由加拿大的“能力维护计划”(MOCOMP)完全满足,MOCOMP在德国的适用性现在得到了德国医师协会的证明。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
[Transfusion-hemosiderosis]. [Retroperitoneal fibrosis]. [Abdominal pain]. [Healthy life style. Perspectives of prevention in modern society]. [General practice quality circles in the large city. Participation by Hamburg general physicians].
×
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:481959085
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