加拿大泌尿外科五年以能力为基础的医学教育:一项关于高级住院医师和教师满意度和观点的全国性调查。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal Pub Date : 2024-12-09 DOI:10.5489/cuaj.8947
David-Dan Nguyen, Marie-Lyssa Lafontaine, Uday Mann, Nicolas Siron, Julien Letendre, Mélanie Aubé-Péterkin, Keith Rourke, Trustin Domes, Jason Y Lee, Naeem Bhojani
{"title":"加拿大泌尿外科五年以能力为基础的医学教育:一项关于高级住院医师和教师满意度和观点的全国性调查。","authors":"David-Dan Nguyen, Marie-Lyssa Lafontaine, Uday Mann, Nicolas Siron, Julien Letendre, Mélanie Aubé-Péterkin, Keith Rourke, Trustin Domes, Jason Y Lee, Naeem Bhojani","doi":"10.5489/cuaj.8947","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In 2018, competency-based medical education (CBME) was introduced to Canadian urology residency training. We examined learner and faculty experiences with CBME five years post-implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two online surveys were developed from a scoping review of CBME literature and expert consultation. They covered aspects including unintended consequences, satisfaction, and challenges. They were distributed to Canadian urology residency program directors, faculty, and senior residents from January to June 2023. Respondents rated agreement/satisfaction using a five-point Likert scale. Descriptive analyses considered scores of 4-5 as agreement/satisfaction and 1-2 as disagreement/dissatisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-nine faculty members (including 10/13 [77%] program directors) and 33/63 (53%) senior residents responded. Overall, 69% of respondents are unsatisfied with CBME, 19% are neutral, and 11% are satisfied. Anxiety and/or fatigue with CBME are reported by 76% of faculty and 66% of residents. CBME is seen as burdensome: 61% of residents frequently trigger assessment requests, while 66% of faculty feel overwhelmed by the volume of requested assessments. Faculty members (83%) and residents (73%) find CBME time-consuming. Over 50% of respondents believe CBME failed to de-emphasize time-based learning, individualize progression, rapidly identify struggling residents, or improve feedback quality. Over 60% agree that CBME has clarified learning expectations and training stages.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is prevailing dissatisfaction with CBME within Canadian urology training programs, impacting the well-being of both faculty and residents while falling short of delivering personalized training; however, CBME has provided a structured and transparent framework for trainee advancement. Improvements to CBME are needed beyond its initial five years.</p>","PeriodicalId":50613,"journal":{"name":"Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Five years of competency-based medical education in Canadian urology: A national survey of senior resident and faculty satisfaction and perspectives.\",\"authors\":\"David-Dan Nguyen, Marie-Lyssa Lafontaine, Uday Mann, Nicolas Siron, Julien Letendre, Mélanie Aubé-Péterkin, Keith Rourke, Trustin Domes, Jason Y Lee, Naeem Bhojani\",\"doi\":\"10.5489/cuaj.8947\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In 2018, competency-based medical education (CBME) was introduced to Canadian urology residency training. We examined learner and faculty experiences with CBME five years post-implementation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two online surveys were developed from a scoping review of CBME literature and expert consultation. They covered aspects including unintended consequences, satisfaction, and challenges. They were distributed to Canadian urology residency program directors, faculty, and senior residents from January to June 2023. Respondents rated agreement/satisfaction using a five-point Likert scale. Descriptive analyses considered scores of 4-5 as agreement/satisfaction and 1-2 as disagreement/dissatisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-nine faculty members (including 10/13 [77%] program directors) and 33/63 (53%) senior residents responded. Overall, 69% of respondents are unsatisfied with CBME, 19% are neutral, and 11% are satisfied. Anxiety and/or fatigue with CBME are reported by 76% of faculty and 66% of residents. CBME is seen as burdensome: 61% of residents frequently trigger assessment requests, while 66% of faculty feel overwhelmed by the volume of requested assessments. Faculty members (83%) and residents (73%) find CBME time-consuming. Over 50% of respondents believe CBME failed to de-emphasize time-based learning, individualize progression, rapidly identify struggling residents, or improve feedback quality. Over 60% agree that CBME has clarified learning expectations and training stages.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is prevailing dissatisfaction with CBME within Canadian urology training programs, impacting the well-being of both faculty and residents while falling short of delivering personalized training; however, CBME has provided a structured and transparent framework for trainee advancement. Improvements to CBME are needed beyond its initial five years.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50613,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8947\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8947","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:2018年,加拿大泌尿外科住院医师培训引入了基于能力的医学教育(CBME)。我们调查了实施CBME五年后学生和教师的经验。方法:从CBME文献的范围回顾和专家咨询中开发了两个在线调查。它们涵盖了意想不到的结果、满意度和挑战等方面。这些研究于2023年1月至6月分发给加拿大泌尿外科住院医师项目主任、教师和老年住院医师。受访者使用李克特五分制对同意/满意度进行评分。描述性分析将4-5分视为同意/满意,1-2分视为不同意/不满意。结果:29名教职员工(包括10/13名(77%)项目主管)和33/63名(53%)老年住院医师参与了调查。总体而言,69%的受访者对CBME不满意,19%表示中立,11%表示满意。76%的教师和66%的住院医生报告了CBME的焦虑和/或疲劳。CBME被认为是一种负担:61%的住院医生经常触发评估请求,而66%的教师对要求的评估量感到不堪重负。教师(83%)和住院医生(73%)认为CBME耗时。超过50%的受访者认为CBME未能减少基于时间的学习,个性化的进步,快速识别挣扎的居民,或提高反馈质量。超过60%的人认为CBME明确了学习期望和培训阶段。结论:在加拿大泌尿外科培训项目中,对CBME的普遍不满,影响了教师和住院医生的福祉,同时也未能提供个性化的培训;然而,CBME为学员的晋升提供了一个结构化和透明的框架。在最初的五年之后,CBME需要得到改进。
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
Five years of competency-based medical education in Canadian urology: A national survey of senior resident and faculty satisfaction and perspectives.

Introduction: In 2018, competency-based medical education (CBME) was introduced to Canadian urology residency training. We examined learner and faculty experiences with CBME five years post-implementation.

Methods: Two online surveys were developed from a scoping review of CBME literature and expert consultation. They covered aspects including unintended consequences, satisfaction, and challenges. They were distributed to Canadian urology residency program directors, faculty, and senior residents from January to June 2023. Respondents rated agreement/satisfaction using a five-point Likert scale. Descriptive analyses considered scores of 4-5 as agreement/satisfaction and 1-2 as disagreement/dissatisfaction.

Results: Twenty-nine faculty members (including 10/13 [77%] program directors) and 33/63 (53%) senior residents responded. Overall, 69% of respondents are unsatisfied with CBME, 19% are neutral, and 11% are satisfied. Anxiety and/or fatigue with CBME are reported by 76% of faculty and 66% of residents. CBME is seen as burdensome: 61% of residents frequently trigger assessment requests, while 66% of faculty feel overwhelmed by the volume of requested assessments. Faculty members (83%) and residents (73%) find CBME time-consuming. Over 50% of respondents believe CBME failed to de-emphasize time-based learning, individualize progression, rapidly identify struggling residents, or improve feedback quality. Over 60% agree that CBME has clarified learning expectations and training stages.

Conclusions: There is prevailing dissatisfaction with CBME within Canadian urology training programs, impacting the well-being of both faculty and residents while falling short of delivering personalized training; however, CBME has provided a structured and transparent framework for trainee advancement. Improvements to CBME are needed beyond its initial five years.

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
Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal
Cuaj-Canadian Urological Association Journal 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
10.50%
发文量
167
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CUAJ is a a peer-reviewed, open-access journal devoted to promoting the highest standard of urological patient care through the publication of timely, relevant, evidence-based research and advocacy information.
期刊最新文献
Robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy using the HugoTM robotic-assisted surgery platform: Initial experience and insights. Sperm retrieval, fertilization rates, and clinical outcomes of infertile men with Y chromosome microdeletion: A retrospective cohort study. Validation of the Patient Activation Measure in kidney stone disease patients. A novel tool to predict lymph node metastasis in patients with prostate cancer based on clinical and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT parameters. Complications and blood loss after invasive treatments for small renal masses: A systematic review.
×
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