找出生物医学科学家教育中理论与实践之间的差距

Kathryn Dudley, David Matheson
{"title":"找出生物医学科学家教育中理论与实践之间的差距","authors":"Kathryn Dudley, David Matheson","doi":"10.3389/bjbs.2024.12629","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Biomedical Scientist (BMS) role is established in healthcare, working in laboratory environments to provide diagnostic testing and to monitor treatment effects on a patients’ health. The profession is subject to several professional standards which highlight the importance of working in the best interests of the patient and service user. However, Biomedical Scientists have little or no patient contact. This study aimed to determine how Biomedical Scientists evidence that they meet the professional standards and support the achievement of patient outcomes.This study utilised a Delphi method to explore the opinions of professional stakeholders to determine whether there was consensus for how this professional group contributes to patient outcomes and offers evidence that they are working in the best interests of the patient. The qualitative 1st round of the study consisted of focus groups and interviews with staff and students on the BSc Biomedical Science awards, Professional, Statutory and Regulatory body (PSRB) representatives and Biomedical Scientists from the National Health Service (NHS). The first-round responses were analysed using thematic analysis which then generated attitude statements which participants scored using a 5-point Likert scale in the 2nd round. Consensus or divergence of opinion was determined based upon a 70% consensus level within each participant group and overall.Following analysis of the 2nd round data, there was divergence of opinion across all stakeholders, with consensus rates being highest in the Biomedical Scientist group (72.7% of statements reached 70% consensus), followed by the student group (54.5% of statements reached 70% consensus) and lowest in the academic group (40.9% of statements reached 70% consensus).This demonstrates a theory-practice gap in both the academic and student groups, suggesting that graduates are insufficiently prepared for their post-graduate role. This gap was particularly evident when discussing topics such as how Biomedical Scientists contribute to patient care, professional registration and working as part of the multi-disciplinary team (MDT). The identification of a theory-practice gap in the education of Biomedical Scientists is a novel finding, indicating that students may graduate with insufficient understanding of the Biomedical Scientist role.","PeriodicalId":505701,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Biomedical Science","volume":"101 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identification of a Theory-Practice Gap in the Education of Biomedical Scientists\",\"authors\":\"Kathryn Dudley, David Matheson\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/bjbs.2024.12629\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Biomedical Scientist (BMS) role is established in healthcare, working in laboratory environments to provide diagnostic testing and to monitor treatment effects on a patients’ health. The profession is subject to several professional standards which highlight the importance of working in the best interests of the patient and service user. However, Biomedical Scientists have little or no patient contact. This study aimed to determine how Biomedical Scientists evidence that they meet the professional standards and support the achievement of patient outcomes.This study utilised a Delphi method to explore the opinions of professional stakeholders to determine whether there was consensus for how this professional group contributes to patient outcomes and offers evidence that they are working in the best interests of the patient. The qualitative 1st round of the study consisted of focus groups and interviews with staff and students on the BSc Biomedical Science awards, Professional, Statutory and Regulatory body (PSRB) representatives and Biomedical Scientists from the National Health Service (NHS). The first-round responses were analysed using thematic analysis which then generated attitude statements which participants scored using a 5-point Likert scale in the 2nd round. Consensus or divergence of opinion was determined based upon a 70% consensus level within each participant group and overall.Following analysis of the 2nd round data, there was divergence of opinion across all stakeholders, with consensus rates being highest in the Biomedical Scientist group (72.7% of statements reached 70% consensus), followed by the student group (54.5% of statements reached 70% consensus) and lowest in the academic group (40.9% of statements reached 70% consensus).This demonstrates a theory-practice gap in both the academic and student groups, suggesting that graduates are insufficiently prepared for their post-graduate role. This gap was particularly evident when discussing topics such as how Biomedical Scientists contribute to patient care, professional registration and working as part of the multi-disciplinary team (MDT). The identification of a theory-practice gap in the education of Biomedical Scientists is a novel finding, indicating that students may graduate with insufficient understanding of the Biomedical Scientist role.\",\"PeriodicalId\":505701,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Biomedical Science\",\"volume\":\"101 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Biomedical Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/bjbs.2024.12629\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Biomedical Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/bjbs.2024.12629","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生物医学科学家(BMS)的职责是在医疗保健领域,在实验室环境中工作,提供诊断测试并监测治疗对患者健康的影响。该职业受多项专业标准的约束,这些标准强调了以患者和服务使用者的最佳利益为工作出发点的重要性。然而,生物医学科学家很少或根本不接触病人。本研究旨在确定生物医学科学家如何证明他们符合专业标准并支持实现患者的治疗效果。本研究采用德尔菲法探讨专业利益相关者的意见,以确定是否已就该专业群体如何促进患者的治疗效果并提供证据证明他们的工作符合患者的最佳利益达成共识。第一轮定性研究包括焦点小组和访谈,访谈对象包括生物医学科学学士学位的教职员工和学生、专业、法定和监管机构(PSRB)的代表以及来自国家卫生服务系统(NHS)的生物医学科学家。采用主题分析法对第一轮反馈进行分析,然后生成态度陈述,参与者在第二轮中使用 5 点李克特量表对其进行评分。对第二轮数据进行分析后发现,所有利益相关者的意见都存在分歧,其中生物医学科学家组的共识率最高(72.7%的陈述达到 70% 的共识率)。在对第二轮数据进行分析后,所有利益相关者的意见出现了分歧,其中生物医学科学家组的共识率最高(72.7% 的发言达到了 70% 的共识率),其次是学生组(54.5% 的发言达到了 70% 的共识率),而学术组的共识率最低(40.9% 的发言达到了 70% 的共识率)。这种差距在讨论生物医学科学家如何为病人护理、专业注册和作为多学科团队(MDT)成员工作等话题时尤为明显。在生物医学科学家教育中发现理论与实践之间的差距是一项新发现,表明学生在毕业时可能对生物医学科学家的角色理解不足。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Identification of a Theory-Practice Gap in the Education of Biomedical Scientists
The Biomedical Scientist (BMS) role is established in healthcare, working in laboratory environments to provide diagnostic testing and to monitor treatment effects on a patients’ health. The profession is subject to several professional standards which highlight the importance of working in the best interests of the patient and service user. However, Biomedical Scientists have little or no patient contact. This study aimed to determine how Biomedical Scientists evidence that they meet the professional standards and support the achievement of patient outcomes.This study utilised a Delphi method to explore the opinions of professional stakeholders to determine whether there was consensus for how this professional group contributes to patient outcomes and offers evidence that they are working in the best interests of the patient. The qualitative 1st round of the study consisted of focus groups and interviews with staff and students on the BSc Biomedical Science awards, Professional, Statutory and Regulatory body (PSRB) representatives and Biomedical Scientists from the National Health Service (NHS). The first-round responses were analysed using thematic analysis which then generated attitude statements which participants scored using a 5-point Likert scale in the 2nd round. Consensus or divergence of opinion was determined based upon a 70% consensus level within each participant group and overall.Following analysis of the 2nd round data, there was divergence of opinion across all stakeholders, with consensus rates being highest in the Biomedical Scientist group (72.7% of statements reached 70% consensus), followed by the student group (54.5% of statements reached 70% consensus) and lowest in the academic group (40.9% of statements reached 70% consensus).This demonstrates a theory-practice gap in both the academic and student groups, suggesting that graduates are insufficiently prepared for their post-graduate role. This gap was particularly evident when discussing topics such as how Biomedical Scientists contribute to patient care, professional registration and working as part of the multi-disciplinary team (MDT). The identification of a theory-practice gap in the education of Biomedical Scientists is a novel finding, indicating that students may graduate with insufficient understanding of the Biomedical Scientist role.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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