对于频繁的基于工作场所的评估来说,没有“太小”的问题:当使用移动应用程序评估EPAs时,大型和小型麻醉住院医师项目之间存在差异。

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES GMS Journal for Medical Education Pub Date : 2024-11-15 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3205/zma001709
Tobias Tessmann, Adrian P Marty, Daniel Stricker, Sören Huwendiek, Jan Breckwoldt
{"title":"对于频繁的基于工作场所的评估来说,没有“太小”的问题:当使用移动应用程序评估EPAs时,大型和小型麻醉住院医师项目之间存在差异。","authors":"Tobias Tessmann, Adrian P Marty, Daniel Stricker, Sören Huwendiek, Jan Breckwoldt","doi":"10.3205/zma001709","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A competency-based education approach calls for frequent workplace-based assessments (WBA) of Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs). While mobile applications increase the efficiency, it is not known how many assessments are required for reliable ratings and whether the concept can be implemented in all sizes of residency programs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Over 5 months, a mobile app was used to assess 10 different EPAs in daily clinical routine in Swiss anesthesia departments. The data from large residency programs was compared to those from smaller ones. We applied generalizability theory and decision studies to estimate the minimum number of assessments needed for reliable assessments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 28 residency programs, we included 3936 assessments by 306 supervisors for 295 residents. The median number of assessments per trainee was 8, with a median of 4 different EPAs assessed by 3 different supervisors. We found no statistically significant differences between large and small programs in the number of assessments per trainee, per supervisor, per EPA, the agreement between supervisors and trainees, and the number of feedback processes stimulated. The average \"level of supervision\" (LoS, scale from 1 to 5) recorded in larger programs was 3.2 (SD 0.5) compared to 2.7 (SD 0.4) (p<0.05). To achieve a g-coefficient >0.7, at least a random set of 3 different EPAs needed to be assessed, with each EPA rated at least 4 times by 4 different supervisors, resulting in a total of 12 assessments.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Frequent WBAs of EPAs were feasible in large and small residency programs. We found no significant differences in the number of assessments performed. The minimum number of assessments required for a g-coefficient >0.7 was attainable in large and small residency programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":45850,"journal":{"name":"GMS Journal for Medical Education","volume":"41 5","pages":"Doc54"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11656171/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"There is no \\\"too small\\\" for frequent workplace-based assessment: Differences between large and small residency programs in anesthesia when using a mobile application to assess EPAs.\",\"authors\":\"Tobias Tessmann, Adrian P Marty, Daniel Stricker, Sören Huwendiek, Jan Breckwoldt\",\"doi\":\"10.3205/zma001709\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A competency-based education approach calls for frequent workplace-based assessments (WBA) of Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs). While mobile applications increase the efficiency, it is not known how many assessments are required for reliable ratings and whether the concept can be implemented in all sizes of residency programs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Over 5 months, a mobile app was used to assess 10 different EPAs in daily clinical routine in Swiss anesthesia departments. The data from large residency programs was compared to those from smaller ones. We applied generalizability theory and decision studies to estimate the minimum number of assessments needed for reliable assessments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 28 residency programs, we included 3936 assessments by 306 supervisors for 295 residents. The median number of assessments per trainee was 8, with a median of 4 different EPAs assessed by 3 different supervisors. We found no statistically significant differences between large and small programs in the number of assessments per trainee, per supervisor, per EPA, the agreement between supervisors and trainees, and the number of feedback processes stimulated. The average \\\"level of supervision\\\" (LoS, scale from 1 to 5) recorded in larger programs was 3.2 (SD 0.5) compared to 2.7 (SD 0.4) (p<0.05). To achieve a g-coefficient >0.7, at least a random set of 3 different EPAs needed to be assessed, with each EPA rated at least 4 times by 4 different supervisors, resulting in a total of 12 assessments.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Frequent WBAs of EPAs were feasible in large and small residency programs. We found no significant differences in the number of assessments performed. The minimum number of assessments required for a g-coefficient >0.7 was attainable in large and small residency programs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45850,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"GMS Journal for Medical Education\",\"volume\":\"41 5\",\"pages\":\"Doc54\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11656171/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"GMS Journal for Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3205/zma001709\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GMS Journal for Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3205/zma001709","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:基于能力的教育方法要求对可信赖的专业活动(EPAs)进行频繁的基于工作场所的评估(WBA)。虽然移动应用程序提高了效率,但目前尚不清楚需要多少次评估才能获得可靠的评级,也不知道这个概念是否可以在所有规模的住院医师项目中实施。方法:在5个月的时间里,使用手机应用程序对瑞士麻醉部门日常临床常规的10种不同的EPAs进行评估。来自大型住院医师项目的数据与来自小型项目的数据进行了比较。我们应用概括性理论和决策研究来估计可靠评估所需的最小评估数量。结果:从28个住院医师项目中,我们纳入了由306名主管对295名住院医师进行的3936次评估。每位受训人员接受评估的中位数为8次,由3位不同的主管评估的中位数为4个不同的环境绩效评估。我们发现,在每个学员、每个主管、每个EPA的评估数量、主管和学员之间的协议以及激发的反馈过程数量方面,大型和小型项目之间没有统计学上的显著差异。在较大的项目中,记录的平均“监督水平”(LoS,从1到5)为3.2 (SD 0.5),而2.7 (SD 0.4) (p0.7),至少需要随机评估3个不同的EPA,每个EPA由4个不同的监督者评估至少4次,总共进行12次评估。结论:在大型和小型住院医师项目中,急诊医师频繁的wba是可行的。我们发现在进行评估的次数上没有显著差异。在大型和小型住院医师项目中,g系数>.7所需的最低评估次数是可以实现的。
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
There is no "too small" for frequent workplace-based assessment: Differences between large and small residency programs in anesthesia when using a mobile application to assess EPAs.

Background: A competency-based education approach calls for frequent workplace-based assessments (WBA) of Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs). While mobile applications increase the efficiency, it is not known how many assessments are required for reliable ratings and whether the concept can be implemented in all sizes of residency programs.

Methods: Over 5 months, a mobile app was used to assess 10 different EPAs in daily clinical routine in Swiss anesthesia departments. The data from large residency programs was compared to those from smaller ones. We applied generalizability theory and decision studies to estimate the minimum number of assessments needed for reliable assessments.

Results: From 28 residency programs, we included 3936 assessments by 306 supervisors for 295 residents. The median number of assessments per trainee was 8, with a median of 4 different EPAs assessed by 3 different supervisors. We found no statistically significant differences between large and small programs in the number of assessments per trainee, per supervisor, per EPA, the agreement between supervisors and trainees, and the number of feedback processes stimulated. The average "level of supervision" (LoS, scale from 1 to 5) recorded in larger programs was 3.2 (SD 0.5) compared to 2.7 (SD 0.4) (p<0.05). To achieve a g-coefficient >0.7, at least a random set of 3 different EPAs needed to be assessed, with each EPA rated at least 4 times by 4 different supervisors, resulting in a total of 12 assessments.

Conclusion: Frequent WBAs of EPAs were feasible in large and small residency programs. We found no significant differences in the number of assessments performed. The minimum number of assessments required for a g-coefficient >0.7 was attainable in large and small residency programs.

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
GMS Journal for Medical Education
GMS Journal for Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
30
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊介绍: GMS Journal for Medical Education (GMS J Med Educ) – formerly GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung – publishes scientific articles on all aspects of undergraduate and graduate education in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, pharmacy and other health professions. Research and review articles, project reports, short communications as well as discussion papers and comments may be submitted. There is a special focus on empirical studies which are methodologically sound and lead to results that are relevant beyond the respective institution, profession or country. Please feel free to submit qualitative as well as quantitative studies. We especially welcome submissions by students. It is the mission of GMS Journal for Medical Education to contribute to furthering scientific knowledge in the German-speaking countries as well as internationally and thus to foster the improvement of teaching and learning and to build an evidence base for undergraduate and graduate education. To this end, the journal has set up an editorial board with international experts. All manuscripts submitted are subjected to a clearly structured peer review process. All articles are published bilingually in English and German and are available with unrestricted open access. Thus, GMS Journal for Medical Education is available to a broad international readership. GMS Journal for Medical Education is published as an unrestricted open access journal with at least four issues per year. In addition, special issues on current topics in medical education research are also published. Until 2015 the journal was published under its German name GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. By changing its name to GMS Journal for Medical Education, we wish to underline our international mission.
期刊最新文献
Competency-based education - the reform of postgraduate medical training in Switzerland. Change in postgraduate medical education - how much didactic shaping is possible at all? A document analysis of the guideline regulations on specialty training 1992-2018 with a focus on surgery. Establishing an online training program for pediatric surgery residents during and after the COVID-19 pandemic - lessons learned. Design, development and implementation of a national faculty development program to promote CBME in graduate medical education in Switzerland. Designing structured postgraduate training programs using agile methods.
×
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