Comparative Study of Quality Improvement in Internsâ History Taking by using a new medical history Form with Review of System Part and current one without this part

Fahimeh Hadavand, M. Haghighi, Simin Dokht Shoaei
{"title":"Comparative Study of Quality Improvement in Internsâ History Taking by using a new medical history Form with Review of System Part and current one without this part","authors":"Fahimeh Hadavand, M. Haghighi, Simin Dokht Shoaei","doi":"10.22038/FMEJ.2021.52644.1362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: One of the most important steps in diagnosis and treatment of diseases is taking a good medical history. Current medical history form of Ministry of Health and Medical Education in our country doesn’t have Review of System part. In this research quantity and quality of Interns’ recording ROS in a new form including this part was studied. Methods: This is a Quasi-experimental study. In control group current medical history form without ROS part and in the cases group new proposed form including ROS part were used to take medical history by interns. Quantity and quality of ROS writing were evaluated by Infectious Disease residents and specialists. All data were compared by K2 and Fisher T test in SPSS 24 software. Results: In control group, 2% of interns had written ROS, all in incorrect place, with moderate quantity. In case group, ROS was written 100% in correct place, with quality of low, moderate, good, very good as 3%, 8%, 71% and 18% in order of frequency. Infectious disease residents’ and specialists’ satisfaction quality as low, moderate, good, very good were 8%, 14%, 72%, 6% and 7%, 15%, 71%, 7% in order with significant difference. (p <0.001) Conclusions: In conclusion we found significant relation between quality and quantity of recording data with using medical history form with ROS part by interns. It is proposed to change current form to a new one with ROS part.","PeriodicalId":34243,"journal":{"name":"Future of Medical Education Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"43-46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future of Medical Education Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22038/FMEJ.2021.52644.1362","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: One of the most important steps in diagnosis and treatment of diseases is taking a good medical history. Current medical history form of Ministry of Health and Medical Education in our country doesn’t have Review of System part. In this research quantity and quality of Interns’ recording ROS in a new form including this part was studied. Methods: This is a Quasi-experimental study. In control group current medical history form without ROS part and in the cases group new proposed form including ROS part were used to take medical history by interns. Quantity and quality of ROS writing were evaluated by Infectious Disease residents and specialists. All data were compared by K2 and Fisher T test in SPSS 24 software. Results: In control group, 2% of interns had written ROS, all in incorrect place, with moderate quantity. In case group, ROS was written 100% in correct place, with quality of low, moderate, good, very good as 3%, 8%, 71% and 18% in order of frequency. Infectious disease residents’ and specialists’ satisfaction quality as low, moderate, good, very good were 8%, 14%, 72%, 6% and 7%, 15%, 71%, 7% in order with significant difference. (p <0.001) Conclusions: In conclusion we found significant relation between quality and quantity of recording data with using medical history form with ROS part by interns. It is proposed to change current form to a new one with ROS part.
采用有系统部分回顾的新病史表与无系统部分回顾的现行病史表提高内科医师病史记录质量的比较研究
背景:诊断和治疗疾病最重要的步骤之一是记录良好的病史。我国现行的卫生和医学教育部病历表中没有系统回顾部分。在本研究中,以一种新的形式对实习生记录ROS的数量和质量进行了研究,包括这一部分。方法:本研究为准实验研究。在对照组中,没有ROS部分的当前病史表和在病例组中,实习生使用包括ROS部分在内的新提出的形式来记录病史。传染病住院医师和专家对ROS书写的数量和质量进行了评估。所有数据在SPSS 24软件中用K2和Fisher T检验进行比较。结果:对照组2%的实习生有ROS书写,书写位置错误,书写量适中。在病例组中,ROS被100%地写在正确的位置,其质量按频率的顺序为低、中等、良好、非常好,分别为3%、8%、71%和18%。传染病住院医师和专家的满意度分别为8%、14%、72%、6%和7%、15%、71%、7%,差异有显著性。(p<0.001)结论:总之,我们发现实习生使用带有ROS部分的病史表记录数据的质量和数量之间存在显著关系。建议将现有形式更改为带有ROS部分的新形式。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
9 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信