沙特阿拉伯吉达阿卜杜勒-阿齐兹国王医疗城急诊科住院医师和教学医师对非临床值班床边教学的看法

Azzah Aljabarti
{"title":"沙特阿拉伯吉达阿卜杜勒-阿齐兹国王医疗城急诊科住院医师和教学医师对非临床值班床边教学的看法","authors":"Azzah Aljabarti","doi":"10.4103/JHS.JHS_6_17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Bedside teaching (BT) is teaching in the presence of the patients which allows direct observation of the learner. It is a very crucial educational modality, which has declined significantly over the last decades. It is under-utilised and under-studied in Emergency Medicine. Although time constraints in the emergency department (ED) is associated with efficient and effective patient management; it exerts a negative influence on the time spent on bedside teaching. Objective: To determine the residents' and teaching physicians' (TPs') perception about BT in non-clinical shift regarding: Clinical knowledge, data gathering, procedure performance, communication and constructive feedback. Methods: Quantitative, cross-sectional study was done at King Abdulaziz Medical City, ED. Two groups were formed: (learners N=30) and (TP N=20) total N=50. We used self-administered questionnaire and then the data was analysed using SPSS version 20.0. Demographic data and results were expressed by mean ±SD and percentage. Comparison was then made between the two groups by using T-test (P < 0.05). Results: There were 50 participants in this study and 100% filled the questionnaires. All 20 (100%) of TP have previous experience with BT vs. only 17 (58%) of the learners. The residents and TPs responded to benefits of the BT: on clinical knowledge with mean values of (4.63±0.41 vs. 4.76±0.37) respectively and on data gathering with mean values of (4.73±0.51 vs. 4.24±0.97) respectively. Forty-six percent of the learners and 20% of the TPs responded to the benefits on procedures; however, the mean values of (4.93±1.0 and 5.0±0.01) were reported from the residents and TPs respectively. Regarding communications, we got mean values of (4.65±1.25 vs. 4.18±0.46) respectively. In regards to giving constructive feedback, the two groups' perceptions gave mean values of (4.58±1.01 vs. 4.57±0.8) in the residents group vs. TPs. Conclusion: Based on the review of the learners and the TPs' perception, we concluded that BT in non-clinical shift is very effective to improve the learners' clinical knowledge, data gathering, communication skills and facilitates giving constructive feedback. However, the benefits regarding procedure performance is still an area that needs further investigation.","PeriodicalId":31033,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Specialties","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Residents and teaching physicians' perception about bedside teaching in non-clinical shift in the emergency department of King Abdul-Aziz Medical City, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia\",\"authors\":\"Azzah Aljabarti\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/JHS.JHS_6_17\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Bedside teaching (BT) is teaching in the presence of the patients which allows direct observation of the learner. It is a very crucial educational modality, which has declined significantly over the last decades. It is under-utilised and under-studied in Emergency Medicine. Although time constraints in the emergency department (ED) is associated with efficient and effective patient management; it exerts a negative influence on the time spent on bedside teaching. Objective: To determine the residents' and teaching physicians' (TPs') perception about BT in non-clinical shift regarding: Clinical knowledge, data gathering, procedure performance, communication and constructive feedback. Methods: Quantitative, cross-sectional study was done at King Abdulaziz Medical City, ED. Two groups were formed: (learners N=30) and (TP N=20) total N=50. We used self-administered questionnaire and then the data was analysed using SPSS version 20.0. Demographic data and results were expressed by mean ±SD and percentage. Comparison was then made between the two groups by using T-test (P < 0.05). Results: There were 50 participants in this study and 100% filled the questionnaires. All 20 (100%) of TP have previous experience with BT vs. only 17 (58%) of the learners. The residents and TPs responded to benefits of the BT: on clinical knowledge with mean values of (4.63±0.41 vs. 4.76±0.37) respectively and on data gathering with mean values of (4.73±0.51 vs. 4.24±0.97) respectively. Forty-six percent of the learners and 20% of the TPs responded to the benefits on procedures; however, the mean values of (4.93±1.0 and 5.0±0.01) were reported from the residents and TPs respectively. Regarding communications, we got mean values of (4.65±1.25 vs. 4.18±0.46) respectively. In regards to giving constructive feedback, the two groups' perceptions gave mean values of (4.58±1.01 vs. 4.57±0.8) in the residents group vs. TPs. Conclusion: Based on the review of the learners and the TPs' perception, we concluded that BT in non-clinical shift is very effective to improve the learners' clinical knowledge, data gathering, communication skills and facilitates giving constructive feedback. However, the benefits regarding procedure performance is still an area that needs further investigation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":31033,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Health Specialties\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Health Specialties\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/JHS.JHS_6_17\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Specialties","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/JHS.JHS_6_17","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

床边教学(BT)是在患者面前进行教学,允许学习者直接观察。这是一种非常重要的教育方式,在过去的几十年里,它已经显著下降。它在急诊医学中未得到充分利用和研究。虽然急诊科(ED)的时间限制与高效和有效的患者管理有关;它对床边教学的时间产生了负面影响。目的:了解住院医师和教学医师在临床知识、数据收集、流程执行、沟通和建设性反馈等方面对非临床值班BT的认知。方法:在ED阿卜杜勒阿齐兹国王医疗城进行定量横断面研究,分为两组:(学习者N=30)和(TP N=20)总N=50。我们采用自填问卷,然后使用SPSS 20.0版本对数据进行分析。人口学数据和结果以均数±标准差和百分比表示。两组间比较采用t检验(P < 0.05)。结果:本研究共有50名被试,100%完成问卷调查。所有20名教师(100%)都有过BT的经验,而只有17名学习者(58%)有过BT的经验。住院医师和住院医生对BT的获益反应:在临床知识方面,平均值分别为(4.63±0.41比4.76±0.37);在数据收集方面,平均值分别为(4.73±0.51比4.24±0.97)。46%的学习者和20%的tp对程序的好处做出了回应;居民和住院医生的平均值分别为(4.93±1.0)和(5.0±0.01)。在通信方面,平均值分别为(4.65±1.25 vs. 4.18±0.46)。在给予建设性反馈方面,两组的感知均值分别为(4.58±1.01 vs. 4.57±0.8)。结论:通过对学习者和助教的观察,我们得出结论:非临床轮班的BT对提高学习者的临床知识、数据收集、沟通能力和提供建设性反馈是非常有效的。然而,关于过程性能的好处仍然是一个需要进一步研究的领域。
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
Residents and teaching physicians' perception about bedside teaching in non-clinical shift in the emergency department of King Abdul-Aziz Medical City, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Introduction: Bedside teaching (BT) is teaching in the presence of the patients which allows direct observation of the learner. It is a very crucial educational modality, which has declined significantly over the last decades. It is under-utilised and under-studied in Emergency Medicine. Although time constraints in the emergency department (ED) is associated with efficient and effective patient management; it exerts a negative influence on the time spent on bedside teaching. Objective: To determine the residents' and teaching physicians' (TPs') perception about BT in non-clinical shift regarding: Clinical knowledge, data gathering, procedure performance, communication and constructive feedback. Methods: Quantitative, cross-sectional study was done at King Abdulaziz Medical City, ED. Two groups were formed: (learners N=30) and (TP N=20) total N=50. We used self-administered questionnaire and then the data was analysed using SPSS version 20.0. Demographic data and results were expressed by mean ±SD and percentage. Comparison was then made between the two groups by using T-test (P < 0.05). Results: There were 50 participants in this study and 100% filled the questionnaires. All 20 (100%) of TP have previous experience with BT vs. only 17 (58%) of the learners. The residents and TPs responded to benefits of the BT: on clinical knowledge with mean values of (4.63±0.41 vs. 4.76±0.37) respectively and on data gathering with mean values of (4.73±0.51 vs. 4.24±0.97) respectively. Forty-six percent of the learners and 20% of the TPs responded to the benefits on procedures; however, the mean values of (4.93±1.0 and 5.0±0.01) were reported from the residents and TPs respectively. Regarding communications, we got mean values of (4.65±1.25 vs. 4.18±0.46) respectively. In regards to giving constructive feedback, the two groups' perceptions gave mean values of (4.58±1.01 vs. 4.57±0.8) in the residents group vs. TPs. Conclusion: Based on the review of the learners and the TPs' perception, we concluded that BT in non-clinical shift is very effective to improve the learners' clinical knowledge, data gathering, communication skills and facilitates giving constructive feedback. However, the benefits regarding procedure performance is still an area that needs further investigation.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Co-Morbidities in psoriatic versus non-psoriatic patients Stability testing of extemporaneous preparation of methyl salicylate ointment An investigation of the saudi healthcare system's readiness for change in the light of vision 2030: The role of transformational leadership style Attitudes and perceptions towards organ donation in Riyadh A rare case of suicide attempt by subcutaneous self-injection of kerosene: A case report and review of literature
×
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