确定卢旺达麻醉与危重症护理本科生临床实习的基本主题和程序技能:改良德尔菲程序的结果。

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Callum Forbes, Bruce Mutembe Nzobele, Barnabas T Alayande, Françoise Nizeyimana, Jean Paul Mvukiyehe, Jocelyn M Booth, Selam Degu Woldegiorgis, Benoucheca Pierre, James Littlejohn, Sheida Tabaie, Abebe Bekele, Craig D McClain, Gaston Nyirigira
{"title":"确定卢旺达麻醉与危重症护理本科生临床实习的基本主题和程序技能:改良德尔菲程序的结果。","authors":"Callum Forbes, Bruce Mutembe Nzobele, Barnabas T Alayande, Françoise Nizeyimana, Jean Paul Mvukiyehe, Jocelyn M Booth, Selam Degu Woldegiorgis, Benoucheca Pierre, James Littlejohn, Sheida Tabaie, Abebe Bekele, Craig D McClain, Gaston Nyirigira","doi":"10.1186/s12909-025-07046-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Low anaesthesia workforce numbers contribute to shortfalls in access to surgical care globally. Investment in contextualised education and training can help address this issue by inspiring graduates to enter into training and imparting important knowledge and skills to non-specialists. We undertook a modified Delphi study to identify physician anaesthesiologist consensus on themes, topics, and skills for inclusion in undergraduate anaesthesia and critical care (ACC) medical school curricula in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and Rwanda.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A list of ACC topics/skills was compiled through grey literature review, guiding survey development for a 3-round Delphi process. The first two rounds solicited responses from physician anaesthesiologists across SSA. The final round included only Rwandan physician anaesthesiologists. Respondents rated topics/skills on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (\"exclude from the curriculum\") through 4 (\"essential for inclusion\"). Item-level Content Validity Index (I-CVI, the proportion of respondents rating a topic/skill as 3 or 4) was used for stratification. A first-round I-CVI threshold of 80% and 70% for subsequent rounds was used to define consensus for inclusion. Excluded topics/skills were considered for re-inclusion in subsequent rounds; 50% agreement was set as threshold for re-inclusion. The first round also sought consensus regarding aims, objectives, and delivery methodology.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 147 topics/skills across 12 domains were identified for initial survey inclusion. Fifty-one respondents from 12 countries completed round one. Ninety-six (65.3%) topics/skills met consensus threshold. One additional skill (\"pain assessment\") was incorporated into round two following suggestions from respondents. The clerkship outcome ranked as most important and achievable was to 'inspire students to undertake anaesthesia specialty training' (n = 25, 49.0% and n = 26, 51.0% respectively). Thirty-six respondents from 12 countries completed round two. Eighty (82.5%) topics/skills met consensus threshold. Seventeen Rwandan specialists completed round three. Seventy-eight (97.5%) topics/skills met consensus threshold. From 67 previously excluded topics/skills, 14 (20.9%) met re-inclusion threshold.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>A modified Delphi process identified 92 essential topics/skills for inclusion in a Rwandan undergraduate ACC clerkship. Experts prioritised 'inspiring students' over 'achieving clinical competence' for undergraduates. A similar Delphi approach may be useful for educational content development in other settings across the African continent and for other specialties.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Not applicable (study described is not a clinical trial). UGHE IRB protocol number: 194.</p>","PeriodicalId":51234,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Education","volume":"25 1","pages":"489"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identification of essential topics and procedural skills for inclusion in a contextualised undergraduate anaesthesia and critical care clerkship in Rwanda: results of a modified Delphi process.\",\"authors\":\"Callum Forbes, Bruce Mutembe Nzobele, Barnabas T Alayande, Françoise Nizeyimana, Jean Paul Mvukiyehe, Jocelyn M Booth, Selam Degu Woldegiorgis, Benoucheca Pierre, James Littlejohn, Sheida Tabaie, Abebe Bekele, Craig D McClain, Gaston Nyirigira\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12909-025-07046-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Low anaesthesia workforce numbers contribute to shortfalls in access to surgical care globally. Investment in contextualised education and training can help address this issue by inspiring graduates to enter into training and imparting important knowledge and skills to non-specialists. We undertook a modified Delphi study to identify physician anaesthesiologist consensus on themes, topics, and skills for inclusion in undergraduate anaesthesia and critical care (ACC) medical school curricula in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and Rwanda.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A list of ACC topics/skills was compiled through grey literature review, guiding survey development for a 3-round Delphi process. The first two rounds solicited responses from physician anaesthesiologists across SSA. The final round included only Rwandan physician anaesthesiologists. Respondents rated topics/skills on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (\\\"exclude from the curriculum\\\") through 4 (\\\"essential for inclusion\\\"). Item-level Content Validity Index (I-CVI, the proportion of respondents rating a topic/skill as 3 or 4) was used for stratification. A first-round I-CVI threshold of 80% and 70% for subsequent rounds was used to define consensus for inclusion. Excluded topics/skills were considered for re-inclusion in subsequent rounds; 50% agreement was set as threshold for re-inclusion. The first round also sought consensus regarding aims, objectives, and delivery methodology.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 147 topics/skills across 12 domains were identified for initial survey inclusion. Fifty-one respondents from 12 countries completed round one. Ninety-six (65.3%) topics/skills met consensus threshold. One additional skill (\\\"pain assessment\\\") was incorporated into round two following suggestions from respondents. The clerkship outcome ranked as most important and achievable was to 'inspire students to undertake anaesthesia specialty training' (n = 25, 49.0% and n = 26, 51.0% respectively). Thirty-six respondents from 12 countries completed round two. Eighty (82.5%) topics/skills met consensus threshold. Seventeen Rwandan specialists completed round three. Seventy-eight (97.5%) topics/skills met consensus threshold. From 67 previously excluded topics/skills, 14 (20.9%) met re-inclusion threshold.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>A modified Delphi process identified 92 essential topics/skills for inclusion in a Rwandan undergraduate ACC clerkship. Experts prioritised 'inspiring students' over 'achieving clinical competence' for undergraduates. A similar Delphi approach may be useful for educational content development in other settings across the African continent and for other specialties.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Not applicable (study described is not a clinical trial). UGHE IRB protocol number: 194.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Medical Education\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"489\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07046-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07046-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

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 essential topics and procedural skills for inclusion in a contextualised undergraduate anaesthesia and critical care clerkship in Rwanda: results of a modified Delphi process.

Introduction: Low anaesthesia workforce numbers contribute to shortfalls in access to surgical care globally. Investment in contextualised education and training can help address this issue by inspiring graduates to enter into training and imparting important knowledge and skills to non-specialists. We undertook a modified Delphi study to identify physician anaesthesiologist consensus on themes, topics, and skills for inclusion in undergraduate anaesthesia and critical care (ACC) medical school curricula in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and Rwanda.

Methods: A list of ACC topics/skills was compiled through grey literature review, guiding survey development for a 3-round Delphi process. The first two rounds solicited responses from physician anaesthesiologists across SSA. The final round included only Rwandan physician anaesthesiologists. Respondents rated topics/skills on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 ("exclude from the curriculum") through 4 ("essential for inclusion"). Item-level Content Validity Index (I-CVI, the proportion of respondents rating a topic/skill as 3 or 4) was used for stratification. A first-round I-CVI threshold of 80% and 70% for subsequent rounds was used to define consensus for inclusion. Excluded topics/skills were considered for re-inclusion in subsequent rounds; 50% agreement was set as threshold for re-inclusion. The first round also sought consensus regarding aims, objectives, and delivery methodology.

Results: A total of 147 topics/skills across 12 domains were identified for initial survey inclusion. Fifty-one respondents from 12 countries completed round one. Ninety-six (65.3%) topics/skills met consensus threshold. One additional skill ("pain assessment") was incorporated into round two following suggestions from respondents. The clerkship outcome ranked as most important and achievable was to 'inspire students to undertake anaesthesia specialty training' (n = 25, 49.0% and n = 26, 51.0% respectively). Thirty-six respondents from 12 countries completed round two. Eighty (82.5%) topics/skills met consensus threshold. Seventeen Rwandan specialists completed round three. Seventy-eight (97.5%) topics/skills met consensus threshold. From 67 previously excluded topics/skills, 14 (20.9%) met re-inclusion threshold.

Discussion and conclusion: A modified Delphi process identified 92 essential topics/skills for inclusion in a Rwandan undergraduate ACC clerkship. Experts prioritised 'inspiring students' over 'achieving clinical competence' for undergraduates. A similar Delphi approach may be useful for educational content development in other settings across the African continent and for other specialties.

Trial registration: Not applicable (study described is not a clinical trial). UGHE IRB protocol number: 194.

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
BMC Medical Education
BMC Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
795
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Education is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the training of healthcare professionals, including undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing education. The journal has a special focus on curriculum development, evaluations of performance, assessment of training needs and evidence-based medicine.
×
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