The New York City Rheumatology Objective Structured Clinical Examination: five-year data demonstrates its validity, usefulness as a unique rating tool, objectivity, and sensitivity to change.

Jessica R Berman, Deana Lazaro, Theodore Fields, Anne R Bass, Elena Weinstein, Chaim Putterman, Edward Dwyer, Svetlana Krasnokutsky, Stephen A Paget, Michael H Pillinger
{"title":"The New York City Rheumatology Objective Structured Clinical Examination: five-year data demonstrates its validity, usefulness as a unique rating tool, objectivity, and sensitivity to change.","authors":"Jessica R Berman,&nbsp;Deana Lazaro,&nbsp;Theodore Fields,&nbsp;Anne R Bass,&nbsp;Elena Weinstein,&nbsp;Chaim Putterman,&nbsp;Edward Dwyer,&nbsp;Svetlana Krasnokutsky,&nbsp;Stephen A Paget,&nbsp;Michael H Pillinger","doi":"10.1002/art.24738","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Traditional means of testing rheumatology fellows do not adequately assess some skills that are required to practice medicine well, such as humanistic qualities, communication skills, or professionalism. Institution of the New York City Rheumatology Objective Structured Clinical Examination (ROSCE) and our sequential 5 years of experience have provided us with a unique opportunity to assess its usefulness and objectivity as a rheumatology assessment tool.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Prior to taking the examination, all of the fellows were rated by their program directors. Fellows from the participating institutions then underwent a multistation patient-interactive examination observed and rated by patient actors and faculty raters. Assessments were recorded by all of the participants using separate but overlapping sets of instruments testing the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) core competencies of patient care, interpersonal and communication skills, professionalism, and overall medical knowledge.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Although the program directors tended to rate their fellows more highly than the ROSCE raters, typically there was agreement between the program directors and the ROSCE faculty in distinguishing between the highest- and lowest- performing fellows. The ROSCE faculty and patient actor assessments of individual trainees were notable for a high degree of concordance, both quantitatively and qualitatively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The ROSCE provides a unique opportunity to obtain a patient-centered assessment of fellows' ACGME-mandated competencies that traditional knowledge-based examinations, such as the rheumatology in-service examination, cannot measure. The ability of the ROSCE to provide a well-rounded and objective assessment suggests that it should be considered an important component of the rheumatology training director's toolbox.</p>","PeriodicalId":8405,"journal":{"name":"Arthritis and rheumatism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/art.24738","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthritis and rheumatism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/art.24738","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Objective: Traditional means of testing rheumatology fellows do not adequately assess some skills that are required to practice medicine well, such as humanistic qualities, communication skills, or professionalism. Institution of the New York City Rheumatology Objective Structured Clinical Examination (ROSCE) and our sequential 5 years of experience have provided us with a unique opportunity to assess its usefulness and objectivity as a rheumatology assessment tool.

Methods: Prior to taking the examination, all of the fellows were rated by their program directors. Fellows from the participating institutions then underwent a multistation patient-interactive examination observed and rated by patient actors and faculty raters. Assessments were recorded by all of the participants using separate but overlapping sets of instruments testing the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) core competencies of patient care, interpersonal and communication skills, professionalism, and overall medical knowledge.

Results: Although the program directors tended to rate their fellows more highly than the ROSCE raters, typically there was agreement between the program directors and the ROSCE faculty in distinguishing between the highest- and lowest- performing fellows. The ROSCE faculty and patient actor assessments of individual trainees were notable for a high degree of concordance, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Conclusion: The ROSCE provides a unique opportunity to obtain a patient-centered assessment of fellows' ACGME-mandated competencies that traditional knowledge-based examinations, such as the rheumatology in-service examination, cannot measure. The ability of the ROSCE to provide a well-rounded and objective assessment suggests that it should be considered an important component of the rheumatology training director's toolbox.

纽约市风湿病客观结构化临床检查:5年数据证明其有效性,实用性作为一个独特的评级工具,客观性和敏感性的变化。
目的:风湿病学研究员的传统测试方法不能充分评估医学实践所需的一些技能,如人文素质、沟通技巧或专业精神。纽约市风湿病客观结构化临床检查机构(ROSCE)和我们连续5年的经验为我们提供了一个独特的机会来评估其作为风湿病评估工具的有效性和客观性。方法:在参加考试之前,所有的研究员都由他们的项目主任打分。然后,来自参与机构的研究员接受了多站患者互动检查,由患者演员和教师评分员进行观察和评分。评估由所有参与者使用独立但重叠的仪器记录,测试研究生医学教育认证委员会(ACGME)的病人护理核心能力、人际关系和沟通技巧、专业精神和整体医学知识。结果:尽管项目主管倾向于给他们的研究员打分高于ROSCE评分员,但在区分表现最好和最差的研究员方面,项目主管和ROSCE教员之间通常是一致的。ROSCE的教师和患者演员评估的个别学员是值得注意的高度一致性,在数量和质量。结论:ROSCE提供了一个独特的机会,可以获得以患者为中心的acgme要求的研究员能力评估,而传统的基于知识的考试,如风湿病在职考试,无法衡量。ROSCE提供全面和客观评估的能力表明,它应被视为风湿病学培训主任工具箱的重要组成部分。
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
Arthritis and rheumatism
Arthritis and rheumatism 医学-风湿病学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
1 months
×
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