通过结构化汇报评估受托专业活动的绩效。

Journal of graduate medical education Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-15 DOI:10.4300/JGME-D-24-00247.1
M Douglas Jones, Gretchen Guiton, Christian Con Yost, Carrie B Torr, Jennifer Gong, Thomas A Parker
{"title":"通过结构化汇报评估受托专业活动的绩效。","authors":"M Douglas Jones, Gretchen Guiton, Christian Con Yost, Carrie B Torr, Jennifer Gong, Thomas A Parker","doi":"10.4300/JGME-D-24-00247.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b> The medical workplace presents challenges for workplace-based learning. Structured debriefing of shared clinical experiences has been proposed as a way to take advantage of workplace-based learning in a setting that facilitates deep learning conversations. <b>Objective</b> To investigate faculty and learner acceptance of private, face-to-face, structured debriefing of performance of entrustable professional activities (EPAs). <b>Methods</b> During the 2020-2021 academic year, faculty at the University of Colorado (CU) and the University of Utah (UU) debriefed fellow performance of jointly selected EPAs in neonatal-perinatal medicine pertinent to shared 1- to 3-week clinical rotations. Private face-to-face debriefing was structured by a comprehensive EPA-specific list of behavioral anchors describing 3 levels of entrustment/accomplishment. Sessions ended with joint decisions as to level of entrustment/accomplishment and goals for improvement. We used thematic analysis of semistructured fellow interviews and faculty focus groups to identify themes illustrated with representative quotations. <b>Results</b> We interviewed 17 fellows and 18 faculty. CU participants debriefed after clinical rotations; UU usually debriefed during rotations. Debriefing sessions for 1 to 2 EPAs lasted 20 to 40 minutes. Themes represented in fellow interviews and faculty focus groups suggested that debriefing facilitated formative feedback along with shared understanding of clinical performance and assessment criteria. The standardized format and private conversations supported assessment of aspects of performance for which review might otherwise have been overlooked or avoided. The conversations also provided valuable opportunities for formative discussion of other matters of importance to fellows. <b>Conclusions</b> Structured debriefing of recently shared clinical experiences fostered formative assessment viewed positively by teachers and learners.</p>","PeriodicalId":37886,"journal":{"name":"Journal of graduate medical education","volume":"16 5","pages":"607-610"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11475426/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Structured Debriefing to Assess Performance of Entrustable Professional Activities.\",\"authors\":\"M Douglas Jones, Gretchen Guiton, Christian Con Yost, Carrie B Torr, Jennifer Gong, Thomas A Parker\",\"doi\":\"10.4300/JGME-D-24-00247.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background</b> The medical workplace presents challenges for workplace-based learning. Structured debriefing of shared clinical experiences has been proposed as a way to take advantage of workplace-based learning in a setting that facilitates deep learning conversations. <b>Objective</b> To investigate faculty and learner acceptance of private, face-to-face, structured debriefing of performance of entrustable professional activities (EPAs). <b>Methods</b> During the 2020-2021 academic year, faculty at the University of Colorado (CU) and the University of Utah (UU) debriefed fellow performance of jointly selected EPAs in neonatal-perinatal medicine pertinent to shared 1- to 3-week clinical rotations. Private face-to-face debriefing was structured by a comprehensive EPA-specific list of behavioral anchors describing 3 levels of entrustment/accomplishment. Sessions ended with joint decisions as to level of entrustment/accomplishment and goals for improvement. We used thematic analysis of semistructured fellow interviews and faculty focus groups to identify themes illustrated with representative quotations. <b>Results</b> We interviewed 17 fellows and 18 faculty. CU participants debriefed after clinical rotations; UU usually debriefed during rotations. Debriefing sessions for 1 to 2 EPAs lasted 20 to 40 minutes. Themes represented in fellow interviews and faculty focus groups suggested that debriefing facilitated formative feedback along with shared understanding of clinical performance and assessment criteria. The standardized format and private conversations supported assessment of aspects of performance for which review might otherwise have been overlooked or avoided. The conversations also provided valuable opportunities for formative discussion of other matters of importance to fellows. <b>Conclusions</b> Structured debriefing of recently shared clinical experiences fostered formative assessment viewed positively by teachers and learners.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37886,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of graduate medical education\",\"volume\":\"16 5\",\"pages\":\"607-610\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11475426/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of graduate medical education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-24-00247.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of graduate medical education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-24-00247.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 医疗工作场所给基于工作场所的学习带来了挑战。有人提出,对共同的临床经验进行结构化汇报,是在有利于深入学习对话的环境中利用基于工作场所的学习的一种方法。目标 调查教员和学员对私下、面对面、结构化的委托专业活动(EPAs)汇报的接受程度。方法 在2020-2021学年期间,科罗拉多大学(CU)和犹他大学(UU)的教师就共同选定的新生儿-围产期医学专业EPAs进行汇报,这些EPAs与共同的1至3周临床轮转相关。私下面对面的汇报是根据一份全面的 EPA 行为锚清单进行的,该清单描述了委托/成就的 3 个等级。会议结束时,共同决定委托/成就的级别和改进目标。我们对半结构化的研究员访谈和教员焦点小组进行了主题分析,以确定主题,并用有代表性的引文加以说明。结果 我们对 17 名研究员和 18 名教师进行了访谈。CU参与者在临床轮转后汇报;UU通常在轮转期间汇报。1 至 2 名 EPA 的汇报会持续 20 至 40 分钟。研究员访谈和教员焦点小组中的主题表明,汇报促进了形成性反馈以及对临床表现和评估标准的共同理解。标准化的形式和私下谈话有助于对表现的各个方面进行评估,否则可能会忽略或避免对这些方面进行审查。谈话还为研究员就其他重要问题进行形成性讨论提供了宝贵的机会。结论 对最近分享的临床经验进行有组织的汇报,促进了形成性评估,受到教师和学员的好评。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Structured Debriefing to Assess Performance of Entrustable Professional Activities.

Background The medical workplace presents challenges for workplace-based learning. Structured debriefing of shared clinical experiences has been proposed as a way to take advantage of workplace-based learning in a setting that facilitates deep learning conversations. Objective To investigate faculty and learner acceptance of private, face-to-face, structured debriefing of performance of entrustable professional activities (EPAs). Methods During the 2020-2021 academic year, faculty at the University of Colorado (CU) and the University of Utah (UU) debriefed fellow performance of jointly selected EPAs in neonatal-perinatal medicine pertinent to shared 1- to 3-week clinical rotations. Private face-to-face debriefing was structured by a comprehensive EPA-specific list of behavioral anchors describing 3 levels of entrustment/accomplishment. Sessions ended with joint decisions as to level of entrustment/accomplishment and goals for improvement. We used thematic analysis of semistructured fellow interviews and faculty focus groups to identify themes illustrated with representative quotations. Results We interviewed 17 fellows and 18 faculty. CU participants debriefed after clinical rotations; UU usually debriefed during rotations. Debriefing sessions for 1 to 2 EPAs lasted 20 to 40 minutes. Themes represented in fellow interviews and faculty focus groups suggested that debriefing facilitated formative feedback along with shared understanding of clinical performance and assessment criteria. The standardized format and private conversations supported assessment of aspects of performance for which review might otherwise have been overlooked or avoided. The conversations also provided valuable opportunities for formative discussion of other matters of importance to fellows. Conclusions Structured debriefing of recently shared clinical experiences fostered formative assessment viewed positively by teachers and learners.

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
Journal of graduate medical education
Journal of graduate medical education Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
248
期刊介绍: - Be the leading peer-reviewed journal in graduate medical education; - Promote scholarship and enhance the quality of research in the field; - Disseminate evidence-based approaches for teaching, assessment, and improving the learning environment; and - Generate new knowledge that enhances graduates'' ability to provide high-quality, cost-effective care.
×
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