Enhancing the interpretational skills of complete blood count reports by second year medical students using competency based learning method

R. Varghese, Niraimathi Manickam, A. Mohanraj
{"title":"Enhancing the interpretational skills of complete blood count reports by second year medical students using competency based learning method","authors":"R. Varghese, Niraimathi Manickam, A. Mohanraj","doi":"10.4103/jcrsm.jcrsm_21_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Competency-based learning can help improve the skills of medical students to interpret lab reports like complete blood counts (CBCs). The objectives of this study were to assess whether “hands-on training” on interpreting the CBC reports is useful and to evaluate the students' and faculty's feedback on their experience based on the Kirkpatrick four-level training model. Methodology: Second-year MBBS students were initially assessed on the knowledge they already had regarding the interpretation of CBC reports, which they had learned in Physiology (T1). They were then divided into two groups as study (S) and control (C) groups. Study group students alone were given “hands-on training” to interpret CBC reports. Then, both the groups were assessed using objectively structured practical examination (OSPE) (T2). The control group was given the same training on another day. Then, both the groups were assessed using OSPE 1 month later (T3). Both the pretraining and posttraining scores were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance. Results: The mean scores differed significantly over time points. In the study group (Group A), the scores from pretraining (T1) to posttraining (T2) (P = 0.001), pretraining (T1) to 1 month later (T3) (P = 0.001), pretraining (T1) to 1 month later (T3) (P = 0.001), and posttraining (T2) to 1 month later (T3) (P = 0.001) were significant. However, in the control group (Group B), the scores from pretraining (T1) to 1 month later (T3) (P = 0.001) and posttraining (T2) to 1 month later (T3) (P = 0.001) were significant, but not from pretraining (T1) to posttraining (T2). Between the study and control groups, the difference in scores at pretraining (P = 0.001) and posttraining (P = 0.001) was significant, but not for the test 1 month later (35.5 ± 11.6 vs. 37.2 ± 10.7). Conclusion: Competency-based learning enhanced the student's interpreting skills of CBC reports, which will be useful in their career as doctors.","PeriodicalId":32638,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Current Research in Scientific Medicine","volume":"84 1","pages":"48 - 52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Current Research in Scientific Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrsm.jcrsm_21_23","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: Competency-based learning can help improve the skills of medical students to interpret lab reports like complete blood counts (CBCs). The objectives of this study were to assess whether “hands-on training” on interpreting the CBC reports is useful and to evaluate the students' and faculty's feedback on their experience based on the Kirkpatrick four-level training model. Methodology: Second-year MBBS students were initially assessed on the knowledge they already had regarding the interpretation of CBC reports, which they had learned in Physiology (T1). They were then divided into two groups as study (S) and control (C) groups. Study group students alone were given “hands-on training” to interpret CBC reports. Then, both the groups were assessed using objectively structured practical examination (OSPE) (T2). The control group was given the same training on another day. Then, both the groups were assessed using OSPE 1 month later (T3). Both the pretraining and posttraining scores were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance. Results: The mean scores differed significantly over time points. In the study group (Group A), the scores from pretraining (T1) to posttraining (T2) (P = 0.001), pretraining (T1) to 1 month later (T3) (P = 0.001), pretraining (T1) to 1 month later (T3) (P = 0.001), and posttraining (T2) to 1 month later (T3) (P = 0.001) were significant. However, in the control group (Group B), the scores from pretraining (T1) to 1 month later (T3) (P = 0.001) and posttraining (T2) to 1 month later (T3) (P = 0.001) were significant, but not from pretraining (T1) to posttraining (T2). Between the study and control groups, the difference in scores at pretraining (P = 0.001) and posttraining (P = 0.001) was significant, but not for the test 1 month later (35.5 ± 11.6 vs. 37.2 ± 10.7). Conclusion: Competency-based learning enhanced the student's interpreting skills of CBC reports, which will be useful in their career as doctors.
运用能力为基础的学习方法,提高医二学生对全血细胞计数报告的解释能力
背景:基于能力的学习有助于提高医学生对全血细胞计数(CBCs)等实验室报告的理解能力。本研究的目的是基于Kirkpatrick四级培训模型,评估CBC报告的“实践培训”是否有用,并评估学生和教师对他们的经验反馈。方法:对MBBS二年级学生进行初步评估,评估内容是他们已经掌握的关于CBC报告解释的知识,这些知识是他们在生理学(T1)中所学到的。然后将他们分为两组:研究组(S)和对照组(C)。学习小组的学生单独接受了解读CBC报告的“动手训练”。然后,采用客观结构化实践考试(OSPE) (T2)对两组进行评估。对照组在另一天进行同样的训练。1个月后(T3)对两组患者进行评分。采用重复测量方差分析对训练前和训练后得分进行分析。结果:各时间点平均得分差异显著。在研究组(A组)中,训练前(T1)至训练后(T2) (P = 0.001)、训练前(T1)至训练后1个月(T3) (P = 0.001)、训练前(T1)至训练后1个月(T3) (P = 0.001)、训练后(T2)至训练后1个月(T3) (P = 0.001)得分均有统计学意义。而在对照组(B组)中,训练前(T1)至训练后1个月(T3) (P = 0.001)和训练后(T2)至训练后1个月(T3) (P = 0.001)的得分有统计学意义,而训练前(T1)至训练后(T2)的得分无统计学意义。在实验组和对照组之间,训练前(P = 0.001)和训练后(P = 0.001)的得分差异有统计学意义,但在1个月后的测试中差异无统计学意义(35.5±11.6比37.2±10.7)。结论:基于能力的学习提高了学生对全血细胞计数报告的口译能力,对其今后的医生职业生涯有一定的帮助。
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
13
审稿时长
20 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信