培训师和受训人员对英国基于工作场所的全科执业许可评估的看法和经验:一项混合方法调查。

IF 1.5 Q3 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE Education for Primary Care Pub Date : 2024-08-08 DOI:10.1080/14739879.2024.2379525
A Niroshan Siriwardena, Viet-Hai Phung, Kim Emerson, Tom Anstey
{"title":"培训师和受训人员对英国基于工作场所的全科执业许可评估的看法和经验:一项混合方法调查。","authors":"A Niroshan Siriwardena, Viet-Hai Phung, Kim Emerson, Tom Anstey","doi":"10.1080/14739879.2024.2379525","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Workplace-Based Assessment (WPBA) forms a major component of the UK General Practitioner (GP) licensing, together with knowledge and clinical skills examination. WPBA includes Case-based Discussion, Consultation Observation Tool, Mini-Consultation Exercise, Multisource Feedback, Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire, Clinical Examination and Procedural Skills, Clinical Supervisor's Report, and Educational Supervisor Review. We aimed to investigate GP trainees' and trainers' perceptions and experiences of WPBA regarding validity and fairness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a national online survey, with Likert-scaled and free-text responses, to a convenience sample of GP trainees and trainers, on perceptions and experiences of WPBA. Analysis included descriptive statistics, scale development, and regression models to investigate factors associated with attitudes towards WPBA, with thematic analysis of free text responses supported by NVivo 12.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 2,088 responses from 1,176 trainees and 912 trainers. Both groups were generally positive towards WPBA, with trainers more positive or similar to trainees towards individual assessments. In a multivariable regression model, accounting for sex, ethnicity and country of primary medical qualification, trainees were significantly less positive (<i>p</i> < 0.001) while international medical graduates (IMGs) trained outside the European Economic Area (EEA) were significantly more (<i>p</i> < 0.001) positive towards WPBA. Qualitative analysis revealed varying concerns about validity and relevance, assessment burden, potential for bias, fairness to protected characteristics groups, gaps in assessment, and perceptions of individual assessments.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Trainers' greater positivity towards elements of WPBA accords with their role as assessors. Despite concerns about bias, IMGs from outside the EEA were significantly more positive towards WPBA.</p>","PeriodicalId":46436,"journal":{"name":"Education for Primary Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perceptions and experiences of trainers and trainees of UK workplace-based assessment for general practice licensing: a mixed methods survey.\",\"authors\":\"A Niroshan Siriwardena, Viet-Hai Phung, Kim Emerson, Tom Anstey\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14739879.2024.2379525\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Workplace-Based Assessment (WPBA) forms a major component of the UK General Practitioner (GP) licensing, together with knowledge and clinical skills examination. WPBA includes Case-based Discussion, Consultation Observation Tool, Mini-Consultation Exercise, Multisource Feedback, Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire, Clinical Examination and Procedural Skills, Clinical Supervisor's Report, and Educational Supervisor Review. We aimed to investigate GP trainees' and trainers' perceptions and experiences of WPBA regarding validity and fairness.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a national online survey, with Likert-scaled and free-text responses, to a convenience sample of GP trainees and trainers, on perceptions and experiences of WPBA. Analysis included descriptive statistics, scale development, and regression models to investigate factors associated with attitudes towards WPBA, with thematic analysis of free text responses supported by NVivo 12.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 2,088 responses from 1,176 trainees and 912 trainers. Both groups were generally positive towards WPBA, with trainers more positive or similar to trainees towards individual assessments. In a multivariable regression model, accounting for sex, ethnicity and country of primary medical qualification, trainees were significantly less positive (<i>p</i> < 0.001) while international medical graduates (IMGs) trained outside the European Economic Area (EEA) were significantly more (<i>p</i> < 0.001) positive towards WPBA. Qualitative analysis revealed varying concerns about validity and relevance, assessment burden, potential for bias, fairness to protected characteristics groups, gaps in assessment, and perceptions of individual assessments.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Trainers' greater positivity towards elements of WPBA accords with their role as assessors. Despite concerns about bias, IMGs from outside the EEA were significantly more positive towards WPBA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46436,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Education for Primary Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Education for Primary Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14739879.2024.2379525\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education for Primary Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14739879.2024.2379525","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:基于工作场所的评估(WPBA)是英国全科医生(GP)执业资格考试的主要组成部分,此外还有知识和临床技能考试。工作场所评估包括病例讨论、会诊观察工具、小型会诊练习、多源反馈、患者满意度问卷、临床检查和操作技能、临床督导报告以及教育督导审查。我们旨在调查全科医生学员和培训师对 WPBA 的有效性和公平性的看法和体验:我们对全科医生受训者和培训师进行了一次全国性在线调查,采用李克特量表和自由文本回答的方式,调查他们对 WPBA 的看法和体验。分析包括描述性统计、量表开发和回归模型,以研究与对 WPBA 的态度相关的因素,并在 NVivo 12 的支持下对自由文本回复进行主题分析:共有来自 1,176 名学员和 912 名培训师的 2,088 份回复。两组受训人员普遍对基于项目的能力评估持积极态度,其中培训师与受训人员对单项评估的态度更为积极或相似。在一个多变量回归模型中,考虑到性别、种族和主要医学资格所在国,受训人员的积极性明显较低(p p 讨论):培训师对 WPBA 要素的积极性更高,这与他们作为评估者的角色相符。尽管存在偏见问题,但来自欧洲经济区以外的 IMGs 对 WPBA 的积极性明显更高。
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
Perceptions and experiences of trainers and trainees of UK workplace-based assessment for general practice licensing: a mixed methods survey.

Background: Workplace-Based Assessment (WPBA) forms a major component of the UK General Practitioner (GP) licensing, together with knowledge and clinical skills examination. WPBA includes Case-based Discussion, Consultation Observation Tool, Mini-Consultation Exercise, Multisource Feedback, Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire, Clinical Examination and Procedural Skills, Clinical Supervisor's Report, and Educational Supervisor Review. We aimed to investigate GP trainees' and trainers' perceptions and experiences of WPBA regarding validity and fairness.

Methods: We used a national online survey, with Likert-scaled and free-text responses, to a convenience sample of GP trainees and trainers, on perceptions and experiences of WPBA. Analysis included descriptive statistics, scale development, and regression models to investigate factors associated with attitudes towards WPBA, with thematic analysis of free text responses supported by NVivo 12.

Results: There were 2,088 responses from 1,176 trainees and 912 trainers. Both groups were generally positive towards WPBA, with trainers more positive or similar to trainees towards individual assessments. In a multivariable regression model, accounting for sex, ethnicity and country of primary medical qualification, trainees were significantly less positive (p < 0.001) while international medical graduates (IMGs) trained outside the European Economic Area (EEA) were significantly more (p < 0.001) positive towards WPBA. Qualitative analysis revealed varying concerns about validity and relevance, assessment burden, potential for bias, fairness to protected characteristics groups, gaps in assessment, and perceptions of individual assessments.

Discussion: Trainers' greater positivity towards elements of WPBA accords with their role as assessors. Despite concerns about bias, IMGs from outside the EEA were significantly more positive towards WPBA.

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
Education for Primary Care
Education for Primary Care PRIMARY HEALTH CARE-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
15.40%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: Education for Primary Care aims to reflect the best experience, expertise and innovative ideas in the development of undergraduate, postgraduate and continuing primary care education. The journal is UK based but welcomes contributions from all over the world. Readers will benefit from the broader perspectives on educational activities provided through the contributions of all health professionals, including general practitioners, nurses, midwives, health visitors, community nurses and managers. This sharing of experiences has the potential for enhancing healthcare delivery and for promoting interprofessional working.
期刊最新文献
Integrating academic medical education into vocational general practitioner training: how do these combined training posts impact on subsequent career paths? The Glasgow experience: a model for GP out-of-hours teaching for year 3 medical students. The cost of everything …. The digital Balint: using AI in reflective practice. Preparing GP registrars for leadership in multidisciplinary primary care.
×
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