对在全科医生培训中使用患者就诊数据作为教育和反思工具的有效性的看法。

IF 1.1 Q4 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE Journal of primary health care Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1071/HC22158
Linda Klein, Michael Bentley, Dominica Moad, Alison Fielding, Amanda Tapley, Mieke van Driel, Andrew Davey, Ben Mundy, Kristen FitzGerald, Jennifer Taylor, Racheal Norris, Elizabeth Holliday, Parker Magin
{"title":"对在全科医生培训中使用患者就诊数据作为教育和反思工具的有效性的看法。","authors":"Linda Klein, Michael Bentley, Dominica Moad, Alison Fielding, Amanda Tapley, Mieke van Driel, Andrew Davey, Ben Mundy, Kristen FitzGerald, Jennifer Taylor, Racheal Norris, Elizabeth Holliday, Parker Magin","doi":"10.1071/HC22158","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Introduction Patient encounter tools provide feedback and potentially reflection on general practitioner (GP) registrars' in-practice learning and may contribute to the formative assessment of clinical competencies. However, little is known about the perceived utility of such tools. Aim To investigate the perceived utility of a patient encounter tool by GP registrars, their supervisors, and medical educators (MEs). Methods General practice registrars, supervisors and MEs from two Australian regional training organisations completed a cross-sectional questionnaire. Registrars rated how Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT), a patient encounter tool, influenced their reflection on, and change in, clinical practice, learning and training. Supervisors' and MEs' perceptions provided contextual information about understanding their registrars' clinical practice, learning and training needs. Results Questionnaires were completed by 48% of registrars (n  = 90), 22% of supervisors (n  = 182), and 61% of MEs (n  = 62). Most registrars agreed that ReCEnT helped them reflect on their clinical practice (79%), learning needs (69%) and training needs (72%). Many registrars reported changing their clinical practice (54%) and learning approaches (51%). Fewer (37%) agreed that ReCEnT influenced them to change their training plans. Most supervisors (68%) and MEs (82%) agreed ReCEnT reports helped them better understand their registrars' clinical practice. Similarly, most supervisors (63%) and MEs (68%) agreed ReCEnT reports helped them better understand their registrars' learning and training needs. Discussion ReCEnT can prompt self-reflection among registrars, leading to changes in clinical practice, learning approaches and training plans. Reaching its potential as an assessment for learning (as opposed to an assessment of learning) requires effective engagement between registrars, their supervisors and MEs.</p>","PeriodicalId":16855,"journal":{"name":"Journal of primary health care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perceptions of the effectiveness of using patient encounter data as an education and reflection tool in general practice training.\",\"authors\":\"Linda Klein, Michael Bentley, Dominica Moad, Alison Fielding, Amanda Tapley, Mieke van Driel, Andrew Davey, Ben Mundy, Kristen FitzGerald, Jennifer Taylor, Racheal Norris, Elizabeth Holliday, Parker Magin\",\"doi\":\"10.1071/HC22158\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Introduction Patient encounter tools provide feedback and potentially reflection on general practitioner (GP) registrars' in-practice learning and may contribute to the formative assessment of clinical competencies. However, little is known about the perceived utility of such tools. Aim To investigate the perceived utility of a patient encounter tool by GP registrars, their supervisors, and medical educators (MEs). Methods General practice registrars, supervisors and MEs from two Australian regional training organisations completed a cross-sectional questionnaire. Registrars rated how Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT), a patient encounter tool, influenced their reflection on, and change in, clinical practice, learning and training. Supervisors' and MEs' perceptions provided contextual information about understanding their registrars' clinical practice, learning and training needs. Results Questionnaires were completed by 48% of registrars (n  = 90), 22% of supervisors (n  = 182), and 61% of MEs (n  = 62). Most registrars agreed that ReCEnT helped them reflect on their clinical practice (79%), learning needs (69%) and training needs (72%). Many registrars reported changing their clinical practice (54%) and learning approaches (51%). Fewer (37%) agreed that ReCEnT influenced them to change their training plans. Most supervisors (68%) and MEs (82%) agreed ReCEnT reports helped them better understand their registrars' clinical practice. Similarly, most supervisors (63%) and MEs (68%) agreed ReCEnT reports helped them better understand their registrars' learning and training needs. Discussion ReCEnT can prompt self-reflection among registrars, leading to changes in clinical practice, learning approaches and training plans. Reaching its potential as an assessment for learning (as opposed to an assessment of learning) requires effective engagement between registrars, their supervisors and MEs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16855,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of primary health care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of primary health care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1071/HC22158\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of primary health care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/HC22158","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言 患者见面工具为全科医生(GP)注册人员的实践学习提供反馈和可能的反思,并有助于对临床能力进行形成性评估。然而,人们对此类工具的实用性知之甚少。目的 调查全科医生注册医师、其导师和医学教育者(MEs)对患者见面工具实用性的看法。方法 来自澳大利亚两个地区培训机构的全科注册医师、导师和医学教育者填写了一份横向问卷。注册医师对注册医师培训中的临床相遇(ReCEnT)这一患者相遇工具如何影响他们对临床实践、学习和培训的反思和改变进行了评分。督导和医务人员的看法为了解注册医师的临床实践、学习和培训需求提供了背景信息。结果 48% 的注册医师(90 人)、22% 的督导(182 人)和 61% 的医务人员(62 人)填写了调查问卷。大多数注册医师都认为 ReCEnT 有助于他们反思自己的临床实践(79%)、学习需求(69%)和培训需求(72%)。许多注册医师表示他们改变了临床实践(54%)和学习方法(51%)。只有较少的人(37%)认为 ReCEnT 影响了他们改变培训计划。大多数督导(68%)和医务人员(82%)认为 ReCEnT 报告有助于他们更好地了解注册医师的临床实践。同样,大多数督导(63%)和教育硕士(68%)都认为 ReCEnT 报告有助于他们更好地了解注册医师的学习和培训需求。讨论 ReCEnT 可以促使注册医师进行自我反思,从而改变临床实践、学习方法和培训计划。要发挥 ReCEnT 作为学习评估(而非学习评估)的潜能,需要注册医师、其督导和 ME 的有效参与。
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 of the effectiveness of using patient encounter data as an education and reflection tool in general practice training.

Introduction Patient encounter tools provide feedback and potentially reflection on general practitioner (GP) registrars' in-practice learning and may contribute to the formative assessment of clinical competencies. However, little is known about the perceived utility of such tools. Aim To investigate the perceived utility of a patient encounter tool by GP registrars, their supervisors, and medical educators (MEs). Methods General practice registrars, supervisors and MEs from two Australian regional training organisations completed a cross-sectional questionnaire. Registrars rated how Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT), a patient encounter tool, influenced their reflection on, and change in, clinical practice, learning and training. Supervisors' and MEs' perceptions provided contextual information about understanding their registrars' clinical practice, learning and training needs. Results Questionnaires were completed by 48% of registrars (n  = 90), 22% of supervisors (n  = 182), and 61% of MEs (n  = 62). Most registrars agreed that ReCEnT helped them reflect on their clinical practice (79%), learning needs (69%) and training needs (72%). Many registrars reported changing their clinical practice (54%) and learning approaches (51%). Fewer (37%) agreed that ReCEnT influenced them to change their training plans. Most supervisors (68%) and MEs (82%) agreed ReCEnT reports helped them better understand their registrars' clinical practice. Similarly, most supervisors (63%) and MEs (68%) agreed ReCEnT reports helped them better understand their registrars' learning and training needs. Discussion ReCEnT can prompt self-reflection among registrars, leading to changes in clinical practice, learning approaches and training plans. Reaching its potential as an assessment for learning (as opposed to an assessment of learning) requires effective engagement between registrars, their supervisors and MEs.

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
Journal of primary health care
Journal of primary health care PRIMARY HEALTH CARE-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
79
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊最新文献
A supported primary health pathway for mild traumatic brain injury quality improvement report. Can SSRI's help women suffering with PMS? Checklists for assessing ethical aspects of health technologies and services. Comfort with having sexual orientation recorded on official databases among a community and online sample of gay and bisexual men in Aotearoa New Zealand. Ethical assessment of virtual consultation services: application of a practical ethical checklist to direct-to-consumer services in Aotearoa New Zealand.
×
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