Real Patient Participation in Workplace-Based Assessment of Health Professional Trainees: A Scoping Review.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Evaluation & the Health Professions Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-31 DOI:10.1177/01632787231180275
Arwa Nemir, Marion Pearson, Vanessa Kitchin, Kerry Wilbur
{"title":"Real Patient Participation in Workplace-Based Assessment of Health Professional Trainees: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Arwa Nemir, Marion Pearson, Vanessa Kitchin, Kerry Wilbur","doi":"10.1177/01632787231180275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this scoping review is to outline the existing landscape of how real patients participate in the workplace-based assessment of trainees across diverse healthcare professions. In 2019-2020, the authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Web of Science databases for studies that included descriptions of experiences whereby patients received care from a health professional trainee and participated in workplace-based assessments of that trainee. Full-text articles published in English from 2009 to 2020 were included in the search. Of the 8770 studies screened; 77 full-text articles were included. Analysis showed that strategies for patient participation in workplace-based assessment varied widely. Aspects studied ranged from validation of an assessment tool to evaluation of the impact of an educational intervention on trainees' performance. Assessment of patient satisfaction was the most common approach to patient involvement. The majority of studies were conducted in North America and in the context of physician training. Formal patient participation in the assessment of health professional trainees appears heterogeneous across health professions. Gaps in the literature are evident; therefore, this review points to an inclusive approach to workplace-based assessment to ensure patient feedback of the trainees who care for them is represented.</p>","PeriodicalId":12315,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","volume":" ","pages":"283-295"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11351003/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation & the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787231180275","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this scoping review is to outline the existing landscape of how real patients participate in the workplace-based assessment of trainees across diverse healthcare professions. In 2019-2020, the authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Web of Science databases for studies that included descriptions of experiences whereby patients received care from a health professional trainee and participated in workplace-based assessments of that trainee. Full-text articles published in English from 2009 to 2020 were included in the search. Of the 8770 studies screened; 77 full-text articles were included. Analysis showed that strategies for patient participation in workplace-based assessment varied widely. Aspects studied ranged from validation of an assessment tool to evaluation of the impact of an educational intervention on trainees' performance. Assessment of patient satisfaction was the most common approach to patient involvement. The majority of studies were conducted in North America and in the context of physician training. Formal patient participation in the assessment of health professional trainees appears heterogeneous across health professions. Gaps in the literature are evident; therefore, this review points to an inclusive approach to workplace-based assessment to ensure patient feedback of the trainees who care for them is represented.

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
基于工作场所的卫生专业培训生评估中的真实患者参与:范围审查。
本范围综述旨在概述不同医疗保健专业中真实患者如何参与对受训者进行基于工作场所的评估的现有情况。在 2019-2020 年期间,作者检索了 MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、PsycINFO、ERIC 和 Web of Science 数据库,以查找包含患者接受医疗专业受训人员护理并参与对该受训人员进行基于工作场所评估的经历描述的研究。检索包括 2009 年至 2020 年发表的英文全文文章。在筛选出的 8770 项研究中,有 77 篇全文文章被收录。分析表明,患者参与基于工作场所的评估的策略差异很大。研究内容从评估工具的验证到教育干预对学员表现影响的评估不等。评估患者满意度是最常见的患者参与方式。大多数研究都是在北美进行的,并以医生培训为背景。患者正式参与对卫生专业受训人员的评估在各卫生专业中似乎各不相同。文献中的空白是显而易见的;因此,本综述指出了一种基于工作场所的包容性评估方法,以确保护理受训者的患者反馈得到体现。
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
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evaluation & the Health Professions is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal that provides health-related professionals with state-of-the-art methodological, measurement, and statistical tools for conceptualizing the etiology of health promotion and problems, and developing, implementing, and evaluating health programs, teaching and training services, and products that pertain to a myriad of health dimensions. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 31 days
期刊最新文献
Analyzing the Effects of a Repeated Reading Intervention on Reading Fluency With Generalized Linear Mixed Models. Evaluation of a Parenting Program for Mothers With a Borderline Personality Disorder: A Multiple Baseline Single-Case Experimental Design Study. Single-Case Study of the Feasibility of Parent Training and Change in Parenting in Comparison to Baseline, in Adolescents With a Major Depressive Disorder. Using Generalized Linear Mixed Models in the Analysis of Count and Rate Data in Single-case Eperimental Designs: A Step-by-step Tutorial. Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Low Back Activity Confidence Scale (LoBACS).
×
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