医学教育中病人笔记的评估工具:范围审查。

IF 5.3 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Academic Medicine Pub Date : 2024-09-24 DOI:10.1097/ACM.0000000000005886
William F Kelly, Matthew K Hawks, W Rainey Johnson, Lauren A Maggio, Louis Pangaro, Steven J Durning
{"title":"医学教育中病人笔记的评估工具:范围审查。","authors":"William F Kelly, Matthew K Hawks, W Rainey Johnson, Lauren A Maggio, Louis Pangaro, Steven J Durning","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005886","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Physician proficiency in clinical encounter documentation is a universal expectation of medical education. However, deficiencies in note writing are frequently identified, which have implications for patient safety, health care quality, and cost. This study aimed to create a compendium of tools for educators' practical implementation or future research.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. PubMed, Embase, Ovid All EBM Reviews, Web of Science, and MedEdPortal were searched for articles published from database inception to November 16, 2023, using the following search terms: documentation, note-writing, patient note, electronic health record note, entrustable professional activity 5, and other terms. For each note-writing assessment tool, information on setting, section(s) of note that was assessed, tool properties, numbers and roles of note writers and graders, weight given, if used in grading, learner performance, and stakeholder satisfaction and feasibility was extracted and summarized.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 5,257 articles were identified; 32 studies were included. Eleven studies (34.4%) were published since 2018. Twenty-two studies (68.8%) outlined creating an original assessment tool, whereas 10 (31.2%) assessed a curriculum intervention using a tool. Tools varied in length and complexity. None provided data on equity or fairness to student or resident note writers or about readability for patients. Note writers often had missing or incomplete documentation (mean [SD] total tool score of 60.3% [19.4%] averaged over 25 studies), often improving after intervention. Selected patient note assessment tool studies have been cited a mean (SD) of 6.3 (9.2) times. Approximately half of the tools (53.1%) or their accompanying articles were open access.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Diverse tools have been published to assess patient notes, often identifying deficiencies. This compendium may assist educators and researchers in improving patient care documentation.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment Tools for Patient Notes in Medical Education: A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"William F Kelly, Matthew K Hawks, W Rainey Johnson, Lauren A Maggio, Louis Pangaro, Steven J Durning\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005886\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Physician proficiency in clinical encounter documentation is a universal expectation of medical education. However, deficiencies in note writing are frequently identified, which have implications for patient safety, health care quality, and cost. This study aimed to create a compendium of tools for educators' practical implementation or future research.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. PubMed, Embase, Ovid All EBM Reviews, Web of Science, and MedEdPortal were searched for articles published from database inception to November 16, 2023, using the following search terms: documentation, note-writing, patient note, electronic health record note, entrustable professional activity 5, and other terms. For each note-writing assessment tool, information on setting, section(s) of note that was assessed, tool properties, numbers and roles of note writers and graders, weight given, if used in grading, learner performance, and stakeholder satisfaction and feasibility was extracted and summarized.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 5,257 articles were identified; 32 studies were included. Eleven studies (34.4%) were published since 2018. Twenty-two studies (68.8%) outlined creating an original assessment tool, whereas 10 (31.2%) assessed a curriculum intervention using a tool. Tools varied in length and complexity. None provided data on equity or fairness to student or resident note writers or about readability for patients. Note writers often had missing or incomplete documentation (mean [SD] total tool score of 60.3% [19.4%] averaged over 25 studies), often improving after intervention. Selected patient note assessment tool studies have been cited a mean (SD) of 6.3 (9.2) times. Approximately half of the tools (53.1%) or their accompanying articles were open access.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Diverse tools have been published to assess patient notes, often identifying deficiencies. This compendium may assist educators and researchers in improving patient care documentation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005886\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005886","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:医生熟练掌握临床病例记录是医学教育的普遍期望。然而,笔记书写中的缺陷经常被发现,这对患者安全、医疗质量和成本都有影响。本研究旨在为教育者的实际操作或未来研究创建一个工具汇编:方法:采用 Arksey 和 O'Malley 框架进行了范围界定审查。在PubMed、Embase、Ovid All EBM Reviews、Web of Science和MedEdPortal上检索了自数据库建立至2023年11月16日期间发表的文章,检索词包括:文档、笔记书写、病人笔记、电子健康记录笔记、可委托的专业活动5及其他术语。对于每种笔记书写评估工具,我们都提取并总结了有关环境、被评估的笔记部分、工具属性、笔记书写者和评分者的人数和角色、所给权重(如果在评分中使用)、学习者表现以及利益相关者满意度和可行性等方面的信息:共找到 5 257 篇文章,其中包括 32 项研究。11项研究(34.4%)发表于2018年之后。22项研究(68.8%)概述了创建原始评估工具的情况,而10项研究(31.2%)评估了使用工具进行课程干预的情况。工具的长度和复杂程度各不相同。没有一项研究提供有关学生或住院医师笔记撰写者的公平性或公正性的数据,也没有提供有关患者可读性的数据。病历书写者往往存在文件缺失或不完整的问题(25 项研究的平均工具总得分为 60.3% [19.4%]),干预后往往有所改善。选定的病假条评估工具研究平均(标清)被引用 6.3(9.2)次。约有一半的工具(53.1%)或其所附文章是开放存取的:已出版的评估病人笔记的工具多种多样,通常都能发现不足之处。本汇编可帮助教育工作者和研究人员改进患者护理记录。
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
Assessment Tools for Patient Notes in Medical Education: A Scoping Review.

Purpose: Physician proficiency in clinical encounter documentation is a universal expectation of medical education. However, deficiencies in note writing are frequently identified, which have implications for patient safety, health care quality, and cost. This study aimed to create a compendium of tools for educators' practical implementation or future research.

Method: A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. PubMed, Embase, Ovid All EBM Reviews, Web of Science, and MedEdPortal were searched for articles published from database inception to November 16, 2023, using the following search terms: documentation, note-writing, patient note, electronic health record note, entrustable professional activity 5, and other terms. For each note-writing assessment tool, information on setting, section(s) of note that was assessed, tool properties, numbers and roles of note writers and graders, weight given, if used in grading, learner performance, and stakeholder satisfaction and feasibility was extracted and summarized.

Results: A total of 5,257 articles were identified; 32 studies were included. Eleven studies (34.4%) were published since 2018. Twenty-two studies (68.8%) outlined creating an original assessment tool, whereas 10 (31.2%) assessed a curriculum intervention using a tool. Tools varied in length and complexity. None provided data on equity or fairness to student or resident note writers or about readability for patients. Note writers often had missing or incomplete documentation (mean [SD] total tool score of 60.3% [19.4%] averaged over 25 studies), often improving after intervention. Selected patient note assessment tool studies have been cited a mean (SD) of 6.3 (9.2) times. Approximately half of the tools (53.1%) or their accompanying articles were open access.

Conclusions: Diverse tools have been published to assess patient notes, often identifying deficiencies. This compendium may assist educators and researchers in improving patient care documentation.

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
Academic Medicine
Academic Medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.50%
发文量
982
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, acts as an international forum for exchanging ideas, information, and strategies to address the significant challenges in academic medicine. The journal covers areas such as research, education, clinical care, community collaboration, and leadership, with a commitment to serving the public interest.
期刊最新文献
Validating the 2023 Association of American Medical Colleges Graduate Medical Education Leadership Competencies. World Federation for Medical Education Recognizes 5 International Accrediting Bodies. Irony. Teaching Opportunities for Postgraduate Trainees in Primary Care. How Many Is Too Many? Using Cognitive Load Theory to Determine the Maximum Safe Number of Inpatient Consultations for Trainees.
×
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