重症医学评估中的患者管理问题。

Q3 Medicine Tunisie Medicale Pub Date : 2024-04-05 DOI:10.62438/tunismed.v102i4.4537
Ahlem Trifi, Aida Benzarti, Asma Mehdi, Eya Seghir, Lynda Messaoud, Sami Abdellatif
{"title":"重症医学评估中的患者管理问题。","authors":"Ahlem Trifi, Aida Benzarti, Asma Mehdi, Eya Seghir, Lynda Messaoud, Sami Abdellatif","doi":"10.62438/tunismed.v102i4.4537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In intensive care medicine (ICM), the use of Patient-Management Problem (PMP) remains limited and no feedback from students is available.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the feasibility of employing PMP referring to clinical cases (CC) as assessment tools for appraising the knowledge and competencies in ICM students; and to gather the students' perception regarding this experience.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>it was a cross-sectional randomized trial. Were included, external students in the 3rd year of the 2nd cycle of medical studies (3rd-SCMS) during their ICM externship. All the participants underwent two random draws (the 1st one for assessment tool to be started (PMP or CC) and the 2nd for the passage order for PMP. Two PMPs versus two grouped QCMs-CC were prepared and a satisfaction questionnaire was distributed. The main judgment criterion was the effect of each assessment tool on the students' decision-making process. This focused on the relevance of the elements provided by each technique, the implication and the difficulty felt. The secondary endpoint was the scores taken for each tool tested.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>20 students were included. All participants had previous experience with PMPs and only nine were familiar with grouped MCQs-CC. PMP scores were 14.9 for the 1st theme and 15.8 for the 2nd theme. The median of the grouped MCQs-CC scores was 14 [12-16] for both. The scores didn't differ between the two techniques. For the 1st theme: the scores were negatively correlated (r=-0.58 and p=0.007). Students felt a better satisfaction for PMP evaluation (p<10-3), the elements provided by PMP were more relevant for decision-making process (p<10-3), the involvement was more felt with PMP (p<10-3) and difficulty was more felt with CCs (p<10-3). The effect of PMP was found to be significant on clinical reasoning (n=36), self-assessment (n=38), problem solving (n=40) and decision making (n=39). Students recommended strongly PMP as a tool of evaluation in ICM (p<10-3).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>scores were comparable between the two tested techniques. The positive perception of students regarding PMP encourages its generalization and teacher training must be strengthened.</p>","PeriodicalId":38818,"journal":{"name":"Tunisie Medicale","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11358768/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient-management problem in the evaluation of intensive medicine.\",\"authors\":\"Ahlem Trifi, Aida Benzarti, Asma Mehdi, Eya Seghir, Lynda Messaoud, Sami Abdellatif\",\"doi\":\"10.62438/tunismed.v102i4.4537\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In intensive care medicine (ICM), the use of Patient-Management Problem (PMP) remains limited and no feedback from students is available.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the feasibility of employing PMP referring to clinical cases (CC) as assessment tools for appraising the knowledge and competencies in ICM students; and to gather the students' perception regarding this experience.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>it was a cross-sectional randomized trial. Were included, external students in the 3rd year of the 2nd cycle of medical studies (3rd-SCMS) during their ICM externship. All the participants underwent two random draws (the 1st one for assessment tool to be started (PMP or CC) and the 2nd for the passage order for PMP. Two PMPs versus two grouped QCMs-CC were prepared and a satisfaction questionnaire was distributed. The main judgment criterion was the effect of each assessment tool on the students' decision-making process. This focused on the relevance of the elements provided by each technique, the implication and the difficulty felt. The secondary endpoint was the scores taken for each tool tested.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>20 students were included. All participants had previous experience with PMPs and only nine were familiar with grouped MCQs-CC. PMP scores were 14.9 for the 1st theme and 15.8 for the 2nd theme. The median of the grouped MCQs-CC scores was 14 [12-16] for both. The scores didn't differ between the two techniques. For the 1st theme: the scores were negatively correlated (r=-0.58 and p=0.007). Students felt a better satisfaction for PMP evaluation (p<10-3), the elements provided by PMP were more relevant for decision-making process (p<10-3), the involvement was more felt with PMP (p<10-3) and difficulty was more felt with CCs (p<10-3). The effect of PMP was found to be significant on clinical reasoning (n=36), self-assessment (n=38), problem solving (n=40) and decision making (n=39). Students recommended strongly PMP as a tool of evaluation in ICM (p<10-3).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>scores were comparable between the two tested techniques. The positive perception of students regarding PMP encourages its generalization and teacher training must be strengthened.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38818,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tunisie Medicale\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11358768/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tunisie Medicale\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.62438/tunismed.v102i4.4537\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tunisie Medicale","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.62438/tunismed.v102i4.4537","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:目的:比较将临床病例(CC)作为评估工具,对重症医学专业学生的知识和能力进行评估的可行性,并收集学生对这一经验的看法。方法:这是一项横断面随机试验。参与者包括第二周期医学学习(第三周期-SCMS)三年级的校外学生,他们正在进行 ICM 校外实习。所有参与者均接受了两次随机抽签(第一次抽签选择评估工具(PMP 或 CC),第二次抽签选择 PMP 的通过顺序。准备了两份 PMP 和两份分组 QCM-CC,并发放了满意度调查问卷。主要评判标准是每种评估工具对学生决策过程的影响。其重点是每种技术所提供要素的相关性、影响和难度。次要终点是每个测试工具的得分。所有参与者都有使用 PMP 的经验,只有 9 人熟悉分组 MCQ-CC。第一主题的 PMP 分数为 14.9 分,第二主题为 15.8 分。两个主题的分组 MCQs-CC 分数中位数均为 14 [12-16]。两种技术的得分没有差异。对于第一个主题:得分呈负相关(r=-0.58,p=0.007)。学生对 PMP 评估的满意度更高(p 结论:两种测试技术的得分相当。学生对 PMP 的积极看法鼓励了 PMP 的推广,必须加强教师培训。
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
Patient-management problem in the evaluation of intensive medicine.

Introduction: In intensive care medicine (ICM), the use of Patient-Management Problem (PMP) remains limited and no feedback from students is available.

Aim: To compare the feasibility of employing PMP referring to clinical cases (CC) as assessment tools for appraising the knowledge and competencies in ICM students; and to gather the students' perception regarding this experience.

Methods: it was a cross-sectional randomized trial. Were included, external students in the 3rd year of the 2nd cycle of medical studies (3rd-SCMS) during their ICM externship. All the participants underwent two random draws (the 1st one for assessment tool to be started (PMP or CC) and the 2nd for the passage order for PMP. Two PMPs versus two grouped QCMs-CC were prepared and a satisfaction questionnaire was distributed. The main judgment criterion was the effect of each assessment tool on the students' decision-making process. This focused on the relevance of the elements provided by each technique, the implication and the difficulty felt. The secondary endpoint was the scores taken for each tool tested.

Results: 20 students were included. All participants had previous experience with PMPs and only nine were familiar with grouped MCQs-CC. PMP scores were 14.9 for the 1st theme and 15.8 for the 2nd theme. The median of the grouped MCQs-CC scores was 14 [12-16] for both. The scores didn't differ between the two techniques. For the 1st theme: the scores were negatively correlated (r=-0.58 and p=0.007). Students felt a better satisfaction for PMP evaluation (p<10-3), the elements provided by PMP were more relevant for decision-making process (p<10-3), the involvement was more felt with PMP (p<10-3) and difficulty was more felt with CCs (p<10-3). The effect of PMP was found to be significant on clinical reasoning (n=36), self-assessment (n=38), problem solving (n=40) and decision making (n=39). Students recommended strongly PMP as a tool of evaluation in ICM (p<10-3).

Conclusion: scores were comparable between the two tested techniques. The positive perception of students regarding PMP encourages its generalization and teacher training must be strengthened.

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
Tunisie Medicale
Tunisie Medicale Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
72
期刊最新文献
GAIA therapeutic farm: Prospective study on multidisciplinary care efficacy. Iatrogenic risk in elderly patients. Impact of virtual reality on the perception of procedural pain in paediatric oncology. Incidence and risk factors of venous thromboembolism in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intravenous Leiomyomatosis of the Uterus: An Intriguing Case Revealed through Anatomopathological Examination.
×
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