Emergency medicine resident perceptions of simulation-based training and assessment in competence by design.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-04 DOI:10.1007/s43678-023-00577-0
Lorne L Costello, Dennis D Cho, Ryan C Daniel, Joana Dida, Jodie Pritchard, Kaif Pardhan
{"title":"Emergency medicine resident perceptions of simulation-based training and assessment in competence by design.","authors":"Lorne L Costello,&nbsp;Dennis D Cho,&nbsp;Ryan C Daniel,&nbsp;Joana Dida,&nbsp;Jodie Pritchard,&nbsp;Kaif Pardhan","doi":"10.1007/s43678-023-00577-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>With the launch of competence by design (CBD) in emergency medicine (EM) in Canada, there are growing recommendations on the use of simulation for the training and assessment of residents. Many of these recommendations have been suggested by educational leaders and often exclude the resident stakeholder. This study sought to explore their experiences and perceptions of simulation in CBD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Qualitative data were collected from November 2020 to May 2021 at McMaster University and the University of Toronto after receiving ethics approval from both sites. Eligible participants included EM residents who were interviewed by a trained interviewer using a semi-structured interview guide. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and collapsed into themes. Data analysis was guided by constructivist grounded theory.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of seventeen residents participated. Thematic analysis revealed three major themes: 1) impact of CBD on resident views of simulation; 2) simulation's role in obtaining entrustable professional activities (EPAs) and filling educational gaps; and 3) conflicting feelings on the use of high-stakes simulation-based assessment in CBD.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>EM residents strongly support using simulation in CBD and acknowledge its ability to bridge educational gaps and fulfill specific EPAs. However, this study suggests some unintended consequences of CBD and conflicting views around simulation-based assessment that challenge resident perceptions of simulation as a safe learning space. As CBD evolves, educational leaders should consider these impacts when making future curricular changes or recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":55286,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-023-00577-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: With the launch of competence by design (CBD) in emergency medicine (EM) in Canada, there are growing recommendations on the use of simulation for the training and assessment of residents. Many of these recommendations have been suggested by educational leaders and often exclude the resident stakeholder. This study sought to explore their experiences and perceptions of simulation in CBD.

Methods: Qualitative data were collected from November 2020 to May 2021 at McMaster University and the University of Toronto after receiving ethics approval from both sites. Eligible participants included EM residents who were interviewed by a trained interviewer using a semi-structured interview guide. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and collapsed into themes. Data analysis was guided by constructivist grounded theory.

Results: A total of seventeen residents participated. Thematic analysis revealed three major themes: 1) impact of CBD on resident views of simulation; 2) simulation's role in obtaining entrustable professional activities (EPAs) and filling educational gaps; and 3) conflicting feelings on the use of high-stakes simulation-based assessment in CBD.

Conclusions: EM residents strongly support using simulation in CBD and acknowledge its ability to bridge educational gaps and fulfill specific EPAs. However, this study suggests some unintended consequences of CBD and conflicting views around simulation-based assessment that challenge resident perceptions of simulation as a safe learning space. As CBD evolves, educational leaders should consider these impacts when making future curricular changes or recommendations.

急诊医学住院医师对基于模拟的培训和能力评估的感知设计。
目标:随着加拿大在急诊医学(EM)领域推出设计能力(CBD),越来越多的人建议将模拟用于住院医师的培训和评估。这些建议中的许多都是由教育领导人提出的,通常将驻地利益相关者排除在外。本研究试图探索他们对CBD模拟的体验和看法。方法:在获得麦克马斯特大学和多伦多大学的伦理批准后,于2020年11月至2021年5月收集定性数据。符合条件的参与者包括EM居民,他们由经过培训的面试官使用半结构化面试指南进行面试。所有的采访都被记录、转录、编码,并分解成主题。数据分析以建构主义理论为指导。结果:共有17名居民参与。专题分析揭示了三大主题:1)CBD对模拟居民观的影响;2) 模拟在获得可接受的专业活动和填补教育空白方面的作用;以及3)对在CBD中使用基于高风险模拟的评估的矛盾情绪。结论:少数族裔居民强烈支持在CBD使用模拟,并承认其有能力弥合教育差距和完成特定的EPA。然而,这项研究表明,CBD的一些意想不到的后果,以及围绕基于模拟的评估的相互矛盾的观点,挑战了居民对模拟作为安全学习空间的看法。随着CBD的发展,教育领导者在做出未来课程改革或建议时应考虑这些影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
171
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: CJEM is a peer-reviewed journal owned by CAEP. CJEM is published every 2 months (January, March, May, July, September and November). CJEM presents articles of interest to emergency care providers in rural, urban or academic settings. Publishing services are provided by the Canadian Medical Association.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信