用SEE打破错误链:临床训练中牙髓病错误的级联分析。

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Medical Education Online Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-08 DOI:10.1080/10872981.2023.2268348
Abubaker Qutieshat, Gurdeep Singh
{"title":"用SEE打破错误链:临床训练中牙髓病错误的级联分析。","authors":"Abubaker Qutieshat,&nbsp;Gurdeep Singh","doi":"10.1080/10872981.2023.2268348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The ongoing endeavors to uncover the link between the prevalent errors in clinical endodontic training and undergraduate education are founded on tentative assumptions. This investigation was aimed at determining if cascade analysis can provide an understanding of the origins and causes of errors and if the sensitivity of student reports to the impact of errors on treatment outcomes can be established.In 2021, a group of investigators from the endodontics department concerned with clinical dental education launched the Study of Endodontic Errors (SEE). Sixty-six undergraduate dental students at one dental teaching hospital submitted anonymous narratives of problems they witnessed in their root canal treatment practices. The reports were examined to determine the sequence of events and the major errors. We kept track of the consequences of treatment outcomes, both as reported by students and as deduced by investigators.In 77% of the narratives, a chain of errors was recorded. The majority of the errors that took place were related to the working length or width of root canals. A substantial portion, 86%, of these errors could have been prevented through a deeper comprehension of the concepts that underlie working length and width. 75% of the errors that initiated cascades involved losing the correct working length. When asked whether the treatment outcome was compromised, students answered affirmatively in 16% of cases in which their narratives described compromised outcomes. Unacceptable outcomes necessitating re-treatment accounted for only 3% of student-reported consequences, but when investigator-inferred consequences were considered, the percentage more than doubled (7%).Cascade analysis of student error narratives is useful in understanding the triggering chain of events, but students provide insufficient information about how treatment outcomes are affected. Misconceptions about working length and width appear to play a significant role in the propagation of procedural errors.</p>","PeriodicalId":47656,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education Online","volume":"28 1","pages":"2268348"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10563643/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Breaking the error chain with SEE: cascade analysis of endodontic errors in clinical training.\",\"authors\":\"Abubaker Qutieshat,&nbsp;Gurdeep Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10872981.2023.2268348\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The ongoing endeavors to uncover the link between the prevalent errors in clinical endodontic training and undergraduate education are founded on tentative assumptions. This investigation was aimed at determining if cascade analysis can provide an understanding of the origins and causes of errors and if the sensitivity of student reports to the impact of errors on treatment outcomes can be established.In 2021, a group of investigators from the endodontics department concerned with clinical dental education launched the Study of Endodontic Errors (SEE). Sixty-six undergraduate dental students at one dental teaching hospital submitted anonymous narratives of problems they witnessed in their root canal treatment practices. The reports were examined to determine the sequence of events and the major errors. We kept track of the consequences of treatment outcomes, both as reported by students and as deduced by investigators.In 77% of the narratives, a chain of errors was recorded. The majority of the errors that took place were related to the working length or width of root canals. A substantial portion, 86%, of these errors could have been prevented through a deeper comprehension of the concepts that underlie working length and width. 75% of the errors that initiated cascades involved losing the correct working length. When asked whether the treatment outcome was compromised, students answered affirmatively in 16% of cases in which their narratives described compromised outcomes. Unacceptable outcomes necessitating re-treatment accounted for only 3% of student-reported consequences, but when investigator-inferred consequences were considered, the percentage more than doubled (7%).Cascade analysis of student error narratives is useful in understanding the triggering chain of events, but students provide insufficient information about how treatment outcomes are affected. Misconceptions about working length and width appear to play a significant role in the propagation of procedural errors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47656,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Education Online\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"2268348\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10563643/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Education Online\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2023.2268348\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education Online","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2023.2268348","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前正在努力揭示临床牙髓病培训和本科生教育中普遍存在的错误之间的联系,这是基于初步的假设。这项调查旨在确定级联分析是否可以了解错误的起源和原因,以及是否可以确定学生报告对错误对治疗结果影响的敏感性。2021年,一组来自牙髓科的与临床牙科教育有关的研究人员发起了牙髓病错误研究(SEE)。一家牙科教学医院的66名牙科本科生匿名讲述了他们在根管治疗实践中遇到的问题。对这些报告进行了审查,以确定事件的顺序和主要错误。我们跟踪了学生报告和研究人员推断的治疗结果的后果。在77%的叙述中,记录了一连串的错误。发生的大多数错误与根管的工作长度或宽度有关。这些错误中的很大一部分,即86%,本可以通过更深入地理解工作长度和宽度的概念来避免。启动级联的75%的错误涉及丢失正确的工作长度。当被问及治疗结果是否受损时,在16%的案例中,学生们的叙述描述了受损的结果,他们的回答是肯定的。需要再次治疗的不可接受结果仅占学生报告结果的3%,但当考虑到研究人员推断的结果时,这一比例增加了一倍多(7%)。对学生错误叙述的级联分析有助于理解事件的触发链,但学生提供的关于治疗结果如何受到影响的信息不足。对工作长度和宽度的误解似乎在程序错误的传播中起着重要作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Breaking the error chain with SEE: cascade analysis of endodontic errors in clinical training.

The ongoing endeavors to uncover the link between the prevalent errors in clinical endodontic training and undergraduate education are founded on tentative assumptions. This investigation was aimed at determining if cascade analysis can provide an understanding of the origins and causes of errors and if the sensitivity of student reports to the impact of errors on treatment outcomes can be established.In 2021, a group of investigators from the endodontics department concerned with clinical dental education launched the Study of Endodontic Errors (SEE). Sixty-six undergraduate dental students at one dental teaching hospital submitted anonymous narratives of problems they witnessed in their root canal treatment practices. The reports were examined to determine the sequence of events and the major errors. We kept track of the consequences of treatment outcomes, both as reported by students and as deduced by investigators.In 77% of the narratives, a chain of errors was recorded. The majority of the errors that took place were related to the working length or width of root canals. A substantial portion, 86%, of these errors could have been prevented through a deeper comprehension of the concepts that underlie working length and width. 75% of the errors that initiated cascades involved losing the correct working length. When asked whether the treatment outcome was compromised, students answered affirmatively in 16% of cases in which their narratives described compromised outcomes. Unacceptable outcomes necessitating re-treatment accounted for only 3% of student-reported consequences, but when investigator-inferred consequences were considered, the percentage more than doubled (7%).Cascade analysis of student error narratives is useful in understanding the triggering chain of events, but students provide insufficient information about how treatment outcomes are affected. Misconceptions about working length and width appear to play a significant role in the propagation of procedural errors.

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
Medical Education Online
Medical Education Online EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
2.20%
发文量
97
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Education Online is an open access journal of health care education, publishing peer-reviewed research, perspectives, reviews, and early documentation of new ideas and trends. Medical Education Online aims to disseminate information on the education and training of physicians and other health care professionals. Manuscripts may address any aspect of health care education and training, including, but not limited to: -Basic science education -Clinical science education -Residency education -Learning theory -Problem-based learning (PBL) -Curriculum development -Research design and statistics -Measurement and evaluation -Faculty development -Informatics/web
期刊最新文献
Internal medicine clerks' motivation in an online course: a mixed-methods study. Medical law; promotion of medicine curriculum: a letter to editor. Tips for developing a coaching program in medical education. High- and low-achieving international medical students' perceptions of the factors influencing their academic performance at Chinese universities. A Medical Education Research Library: key research topics and associated experts.
×
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