高风险临床考试的虚拟评估——医师助理学生及其考官的观点。

Pauline Joyce, Dara Cassidy, Laura Kenna
{"title":"高风险临床考试的虚拟评估——医师助理学生及其考官的观点。","authors":"Pauline Joyce,&nbsp;Dara Cassidy,&nbsp;Laura Kenna","doi":"10.1097/JPA.0000000000000516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This case study emerged from the necessity to reschedule an in-person long case examination to an online platform for physician assistant students' final clinical examination during COVID-19 restrictions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the experiences of students and examiners for a high stakes' clinical examination online.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was an evaluation research study using the Context, Input, Process, Product model, which provided a framework to establish the effectiveness and/or success of an online format for a high stakes' clinical examination. All students and examiners were invited to take part in virtual interviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results suggest that both students (n = 5) and examiners (n = 7) agree that, although the stress of a face-to-face examination was lessened for the student, this was balanced by a new stressor of potential Internet problems. All agreed that a virtual setting for a high stakes' assessment is not transferable, with both groups citing the lack of opportunities to \"read the patient\" and \"showcase their physical examination skills\" as challenging.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study suggests that, in the context of balancing the risks of the pandemic with graduating health care professionals, the online clinical examination format met the required assessment criteria. Recommendations suggest that the long case could be planned so that students and patients are in the same setting to perform a physical examination, confirming the finding that questions on \"how to\" examine a patient are no substitute for \"doing.\"</p>","PeriodicalId":39231,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Physician Assistant Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Virtual Assessment for a High Stakes' Clinical Examination-Physician Assistant Students' and Their Examiners' Perspectives.\",\"authors\":\"Pauline Joyce,&nbsp;Dara Cassidy,&nbsp;Laura Kenna\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/JPA.0000000000000516\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This case study emerged from the necessity to reschedule an in-person long case examination to an online platform for physician assistant students' final clinical examination during COVID-19 restrictions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the experiences of students and examiners for a high stakes' clinical examination online.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was an evaluation research study using the Context, Input, Process, Product model, which provided a framework to establish the effectiveness and/or success of an online format for a high stakes' clinical examination. All students and examiners were invited to take part in virtual interviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results suggest that both students (n = 5) and examiners (n = 7) agree that, although the stress of a face-to-face examination was lessened for the student, this was balanced by a new stressor of potential Internet problems. All agreed that a virtual setting for a high stakes' assessment is not transferable, with both groups citing the lack of opportunities to \\\"read the patient\\\" and \\\"showcase their physical examination skills\\\" as challenging.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study suggests that, in the context of balancing the risks of the pandemic with graduating health care professionals, the online clinical examination format met the required assessment criteria. Recommendations suggest that the long case could be planned so that students and patients are in the same setting to perform a physical examination, confirming the finding that questions on \\\"how to\\\" examine a patient are no substitute for \\\"doing.\\\"</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39231,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Physician Assistant Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Physician Assistant Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/JPA.0000000000000516\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Health Professions\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Physician Assistant Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JPA.0000000000000516","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本案例研究源于在COVID-19限制期间需要将现场长病例检查重新安排到医师助理学生最终临床检查的在线平台。本研究的目的是评估学生和主考官对高风险在线临床考试的体验。方法:这是一项使用上下文、输入、过程、产品模型的评估研究,该模型为建立高风险临床检查在线格式的有效性和/或成功提供了框架。所有的学生和考官都被邀请参加虚拟面试。结果:结果表明,学生(n = 5)和考官(n = 7)都同意,尽管面对面考试的压力减轻了学生,但这被潜在的网络问题这一新的压力源所平衡。所有人都同意,高风险评估的虚拟环境是不可转让的,两组人都认为缺乏“了解病人”和“展示他们的体检技能”的机会是具有挑战性的。结论:我们的研究表明,在平衡大流行风险与即将毕业的卫生保健专业人员的背景下,在线临床检查格式符合所需的评估标准。建议建议,可以计划一个长病例,以便学生和患者在同一环境中进行身体检查,这证实了“如何”检查患者的问题不能代替“做”的发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Evaluation of Virtual Assessment for a High Stakes' Clinical Examination-Physician Assistant Students' and Their Examiners' Perspectives.

Purpose: This case study emerged from the necessity to reschedule an in-person long case examination to an online platform for physician assistant students' final clinical examination during COVID-19 restrictions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the experiences of students and examiners for a high stakes' clinical examination online.

Methods: This was an evaluation research study using the Context, Input, Process, Product model, which provided a framework to establish the effectiveness and/or success of an online format for a high stakes' clinical examination. All students and examiners were invited to take part in virtual interviews.

Results: The results suggest that both students (n = 5) and examiners (n = 7) agree that, although the stress of a face-to-face examination was lessened for the student, this was balanced by a new stressor of potential Internet problems. All agreed that a virtual setting for a high stakes' assessment is not transferable, with both groups citing the lack of opportunities to "read the patient" and "showcase their physical examination skills" as challenging.

Conclusion: Our study suggests that, in the context of balancing the risks of the pandemic with graduating health care professionals, the online clinical examination format met the required assessment criteria. Recommendations suggest that the long case could be planned so that students and patients are in the same setting to perform a physical examination, confirming the finding that questions on "how to" examine a patient are no substitute for "doing."

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
109
期刊最新文献
Using Four-Component Instructional Design to Create an Interactive Point-of-Care Ultrasound Curriculum for Physician Associate Students. Strengthening the Multiple-Choice Assessment: Improving Item-Writing Skills of Physician Assistant Educators. Physician Assistant Training, Collaboration, and Practice Act Legislation: Perspectives From Practicing Physician Assistants. Compliance With Accreditation Standards on Diversity: Is Institutional Support the Missing Link? Viewing Medical Education Through the Lens of Second Language Acquisition.
×
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