住院医师老年胜任力评估:5Ms维度的验证。

Journal of graduate medical education Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-08-15 DOI:10.4300/JGME-D-24-00759.1
Sarah Montreuil, Éric Marchand, Pascal W M Van Gerven, Alexandre Lafleur
{"title":"住院医师老年胜任力评估:5Ms维度的验证。","authors":"Sarah Montreuil, Éric Marchand, Pascal W M Van Gerven, Alexandre Lafleur","doi":"10.4300/JGME-D-24-00759.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b> Despite undergraduate training in geriatric care, gaps persist throughout residency, highlighting limitations of current assessment methods in evaluating medical expertise across geriatric dimensions. <b>Objective</b> We developed a case-based assessment using the geriatric 5Ms framework (Mind, Mobility, Medications, Multicomplexity, Matters Most), aligned with undergraduate objectives and North American internal medicine milestones. We present feasibility data and preliminary validity evidence of using the geriatric 5Ms framework to evaluate residents' geriatric medical expertise. <b>Methods</b> During a 2023 mandatory academic session at a single site, 68 first- to third-year internal medicine residents were randomly assigned to complete assessment and management plans for 3 of 6 geriatric cases within 1 hour. Two blinded educators rated performance on 5Ms dimensions and non-geriatric medical expertise using a 3-level rating scale (0 to 2). We collected feasibility data (logistical integration, participation rates, time to design cases, rate responses) and validity evidence, based on Messick's framework, in part through a post-assessment questionnaire. <b>Results</b> Sixty-five residents completed 3 cases each, and 3 residents completed 2 cases each, resulting in 201 total cases, each integrating all 5Ms dimensions. Scores across the 5Ms dimensions ranged from 0.8 to 1.3, indicating partial assessment and management. All 5Ms dimensions (mean=1.1, SD=0.3) scored significantly lower than non-geriatric medical expertise (mean=1.5; SD=0.3; <i>t</i>(64)=9.58; <i>P</i><.001). Interrater reliability was moderate to strong (ICC=0.67-0.85, <i>P</i><.001). Most residents rated the cases (59 of 67, 88%; mean=4.4; SD=0.7) and the assessment (56 of 67, 84%; mean=4.1; SD=0.7) as representative of clinical practice. <b>Conclusions</b> A case-based assessment using the geriatric 5Ms framework demonstrated feasibility and preliminary validity for evaluating residents' geriatric medical expertise.</p>","PeriodicalId":37886,"journal":{"name":"Journal of graduate medical education","volume":"17 4","pages":"470-478"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12360228/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing Geriatric Competencies in Residents: Validating the 5Ms Dimensions.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Montreuil, Éric Marchand, Pascal W M Van Gerven, Alexandre Lafleur\",\"doi\":\"10.4300/JGME-D-24-00759.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background</b> Despite undergraduate training in geriatric care, gaps persist throughout residency, highlighting limitations of current assessment methods in evaluating medical expertise across geriatric dimensions. <b>Objective</b> We developed a case-based assessment using the geriatric 5Ms framework (Mind, Mobility, Medications, Multicomplexity, Matters Most), aligned with undergraduate objectives and North American internal medicine milestones. We present feasibility data and preliminary validity evidence of using the geriatric 5Ms framework to evaluate residents' geriatric medical expertise. <b>Methods</b> During a 2023 mandatory academic session at a single site, 68 first- to third-year internal medicine residents were randomly assigned to complete assessment and management plans for 3 of 6 geriatric cases within 1 hour. Two blinded educators rated performance on 5Ms dimensions and non-geriatric medical expertise using a 3-level rating scale (0 to 2). We collected feasibility data (logistical integration, participation rates, time to design cases, rate responses) and validity evidence, based on Messick's framework, in part through a post-assessment questionnaire. <b>Results</b> Sixty-five residents completed 3 cases each, and 3 residents completed 2 cases each, resulting in 201 total cases, each integrating all 5Ms dimensions. Scores across the 5Ms dimensions ranged from 0.8 to 1.3, indicating partial assessment and management. All 5Ms dimensions (mean=1.1, SD=0.3) scored significantly lower than non-geriatric medical expertise (mean=1.5; SD=0.3; <i>t</i>(64)=9.58; <i>P</i><.001). Interrater reliability was moderate to strong (ICC=0.67-0.85, <i>P</i><.001). Most residents rated the cases (59 of 67, 88%; mean=4.4; SD=0.7) and the assessment (56 of 67, 84%; mean=4.1; SD=0.7) as representative of clinical practice. <b>Conclusions</b> A case-based assessment using the geriatric 5Ms framework demonstrated feasibility and preliminary validity for evaluating residents' geriatric medical expertise.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37886,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of graduate medical education\",\"volume\":\"17 4\",\"pages\":\"470-478\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12360228/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-24-00759.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/8/15 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-24-00759.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管在老年护理方面进行了本科培训,但差距在住院期间仍然存在,这突出了当前评估方法在评估老年医学专业知识方面的局限性。我们利用老年医学5Ms框架(心智、活动能力、药物、多重复杂性、最重要的事情)开发了一种基于病例的评估,与本科目标和北美内科里程碑保持一致。我们提出了使用老年医学5Ms框架评估居民老年医学专业知识的可行性数据和初步有效性证据。方法在2023年的一次强制性学术会议上,68名一至三年级内科住院医师被随机分配,在1小时内完成6例老年病例中的3例的评估和管理计划。两名盲法教育工作者使用3级评分量表(0到2)对5Ms维度和非老年医学专业知识的表现进行评分。我们收集了可行性数据(后勤整合、参与率、设计案例的时间、反应率)和有效性证据,基于梅西克的框架,部分通过评估后问卷。结果65名居民每人完成3例,3名居民每人完成2例,共201例,均整合了所有5m维度。5Ms维度的得分范围从0.8到1.3,表明部分评估和管理。所有5Ms维度(mean=1.1, SD=0.3)得分显著低于非老年医学专业知识(mean=1.5, SD=0.3; t(64)=9.58;结论采用老年医学5Ms框架进行个案评估,证明了评估居民老年医学专业知识的可行性和初步有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing Geriatric Competencies in Residents: Validating the 5Ms Dimensions.

Background Despite undergraduate training in geriatric care, gaps persist throughout residency, highlighting limitations of current assessment methods in evaluating medical expertise across geriatric dimensions. Objective We developed a case-based assessment using the geriatric 5Ms framework (Mind, Mobility, Medications, Multicomplexity, Matters Most), aligned with undergraduate objectives and North American internal medicine milestones. We present feasibility data and preliminary validity evidence of using the geriatric 5Ms framework to evaluate residents' geriatric medical expertise. Methods During a 2023 mandatory academic session at a single site, 68 first- to third-year internal medicine residents were randomly assigned to complete assessment and management plans for 3 of 6 geriatric cases within 1 hour. Two blinded educators rated performance on 5Ms dimensions and non-geriatric medical expertise using a 3-level rating scale (0 to 2). We collected feasibility data (logistical integration, participation rates, time to design cases, rate responses) and validity evidence, based on Messick's framework, in part through a post-assessment questionnaire. Results Sixty-five residents completed 3 cases each, and 3 residents completed 2 cases each, resulting in 201 total cases, each integrating all 5Ms dimensions. Scores across the 5Ms dimensions ranged from 0.8 to 1.3, indicating partial assessment and management. All 5Ms dimensions (mean=1.1, SD=0.3) scored significantly lower than non-geriatric medical expertise (mean=1.5; SD=0.3; t(64)=9.58; P<.001). Interrater reliability was moderate to strong (ICC=0.67-0.85, P<.001). Most residents rated the cases (59 of 67, 88%; mean=4.4; SD=0.7) and the assessment (56 of 67, 84%; mean=4.1; SD=0.7) as representative of clinical practice. Conclusions A case-based assessment using the geriatric 5Ms framework demonstrated feasibility and preliminary validity for evaluating residents' geriatric medical expertise.

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:604180095
Book学术官方微信