{"title":"“勾”?一个新的基于结果的研究生课程能否利用程序性评估减轻重症医学的评估负担?","authors":"Christopher Smith, Mumtaz Patel","doi":"10.1177/17511437211061642","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Increasing dissatisfaction with existing methods of assessment in the workplace alongside a national drive towards outcomes-based postgraduate curricula led to a recent overhaul of the way Intensive Care Medicine (ICM) trainees are assessed in the United Kingdom. Programmatic assessment methodology was utilised; the existing 'tick-box' approach using workplace-based assessment to demonstrate competencies was de-emphasised and the expertise of trainers used to assess capability relating to fewer, high-level outcomes related to distinct areas of specialist practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A thematic analysis was undertaken investigating attitudes from 125 key stakeholders, including trainees and trainers, towards the new assessment strategy in relation to impact on assessment burden and acceptability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This qualitative study suggests increased satisfaction with the transition to an outcomes-based model with capability judged by educational supervisors. However, reflecting frustration relating to current assessment in the workplace, participants felt assessment burden has been significantly reduced. The approach taken was felt to be an improved method for assessing professional practice; there was enthusiasm for this change. However, this research highlights trainee and trainer anxiety regarding how to 'pass' these expert judgement decisions of capability in the real world. Additionally, concerns relating to the impact on subgroups of trainees due to the potential influence of implicit biases on the resultant fewer but 'higher stakes' interrogative judgements became apparent.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The move further towards a constructivist paradigm in workplace assessment in ICM reduces assessment burden yet can provoke anxiety amongst trainees and trainers requiring considered implementation. Furthermore, the perception of potential for bias in global judgements of performance requires further exploration.</p>","PeriodicalId":39161,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","volume":"24 2","pages":"170-177"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10227897/pdf/10.1177_17511437211061642.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'Ticked off'? Can a new outcomes-based postgraduate curriculum utilising programmatic assessment reduce assessment burden in Intensive Care Medicine?\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Smith, Mumtaz Patel\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17511437211061642\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Increasing dissatisfaction with existing methods of assessment in the workplace alongside a national drive towards outcomes-based postgraduate curricula led to a recent overhaul of the way Intensive Care Medicine (ICM) trainees are assessed in the United Kingdom. Programmatic assessment methodology was utilised; the existing 'tick-box' approach using workplace-based assessment to demonstrate competencies was de-emphasised and the expertise of trainers used to assess capability relating to fewer, high-level outcomes related to distinct areas of specialist practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A thematic analysis was undertaken investigating attitudes from 125 key stakeholders, including trainees and trainers, towards the new assessment strategy in relation to impact on assessment burden and acceptability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This qualitative study suggests increased satisfaction with the transition to an outcomes-based model with capability judged by educational supervisors. However, reflecting frustration relating to current assessment in the workplace, participants felt assessment burden has been significantly reduced. The approach taken was felt to be an improved method for assessing professional practice; there was enthusiasm for this change. However, this research highlights trainee and trainer anxiety regarding how to 'pass' these expert judgement decisions of capability in the real world. Additionally, concerns relating to the impact on subgroups of trainees due to the potential influence of implicit biases on the resultant fewer but 'higher stakes' interrogative judgements became apparent.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The move further towards a constructivist paradigm in workplace assessment in ICM reduces assessment burden yet can provoke anxiety amongst trainees and trainers requiring considered implementation. Furthermore, the perception of potential for bias in global judgements of performance requires further exploration.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39161,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Intensive Care Society\",\"volume\":\"24 2\",\"pages\":\"170-177\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10227897/pdf/10.1177_17511437211061642.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Intensive Care Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17511437211061642\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Intensive Care Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17511437211061642","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
'Ticked off'? Can a new outcomes-based postgraduate curriculum utilising programmatic assessment reduce assessment burden in Intensive Care Medicine?
Context: Increasing dissatisfaction with existing methods of assessment in the workplace alongside a national drive towards outcomes-based postgraduate curricula led to a recent overhaul of the way Intensive Care Medicine (ICM) trainees are assessed in the United Kingdom. Programmatic assessment methodology was utilised; the existing 'tick-box' approach using workplace-based assessment to demonstrate competencies was de-emphasised and the expertise of trainers used to assess capability relating to fewer, high-level outcomes related to distinct areas of specialist practice.
Methods: A thematic analysis was undertaken investigating attitudes from 125 key stakeholders, including trainees and trainers, towards the new assessment strategy in relation to impact on assessment burden and acceptability.
Results: This qualitative study suggests increased satisfaction with the transition to an outcomes-based model with capability judged by educational supervisors. However, reflecting frustration relating to current assessment in the workplace, participants felt assessment burden has been significantly reduced. The approach taken was felt to be an improved method for assessing professional practice; there was enthusiasm for this change. However, this research highlights trainee and trainer anxiety regarding how to 'pass' these expert judgement decisions of capability in the real world. Additionally, concerns relating to the impact on subgroups of trainees due to the potential influence of implicit biases on the resultant fewer but 'higher stakes' interrogative judgements became apparent.
Conclusion: The move further towards a constructivist paradigm in workplace assessment in ICM reduces assessment burden yet can provoke anxiety amongst trainees and trainers requiring considered implementation. Furthermore, the perception of potential for bias in global judgements of performance requires further exploration.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of the Intensive Care Society (JICS) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that strives to disseminate clinically and scientifically relevant peer-reviewed research, evaluation, experience and opinion to all staff working in the field of intensive care medicine. Our aim is to inform clinicians on the provision of best practice and provide direction for innovative scientific research in what is one of the broadest and most multi-disciplinary healthcare specialties. While original articles and systematic reviews lie at the heart of the Journal, we also value and recognise the need for opinion articles, case reports and correspondence to guide clinically and scientifically important areas in which conclusive evidence is lacking. The style of the Journal is based on its founding mission statement to ‘instruct, inform and entertain by encompassing the best aspects of both tabloid and broadsheet''.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
