评估家庭医学学员——我们能从欧洲邻国学到什么?

GMS Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Ausbildung Pub Date : 2015-05-13 eCollection Date: 2015-01-01 DOI:10.3205/zma000963
Elisabeth Flum, Roar Maagaard, Maciek Godycki-Cwirko, Nigel Scarborough, Nynke Scherpbier, Thomas Ledig, Marco Roos, Jost Steinhäuser
{"title":"评估家庭医学学员——我们能从欧洲邻国学到什么?","authors":"Elisabeth Flum,&nbsp;Roar Maagaard,&nbsp;Maciek Godycki-Cwirko,&nbsp;Nigel Scarborough,&nbsp;Nynke Scherpbier,&nbsp;Thomas Ledig,&nbsp;Marco Roos,&nbsp;Jost Steinhäuser","doi":"10.3205/zma000963","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although demands on family physicians (FP) are to a large extent similar in the European Union, uniform assessment standards for family medicine (FM) specialty training and assessment do not exist. Aim of this pilot study was to elicit and compare the different modalities and assessment methods of FM specialty training in five European countries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A semi structured survey was undertaken based on a convenient sample in five European countries (Denmark, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom). The respondents were asked to respond to ten items about aspects of FM specialty training and assessment methods in their respective countries. If available, this data was completed with information from official websites of the countries involved.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>FM specialty training is performed heterogeneously in the surveyed countries. Training time periods range from three to five years, in some countries requiring a foundation program of up to two years. Most countries perform longitudinal assessment during FM specialty training using a combination of competence-based approach with additional formative and summative assessment. There is some evidence on the assessments methods used, however the assessment method used and costs of assessment differs remarkably between the participating countries.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Longitudinal and competence-based assessment is the presently preferred approach for FM specialty training. Countries which use less multifaceted methods for assessment could learn from best practice. Potential changes have significant cost implications.</p>","PeriodicalId":30054,"journal":{"name":"GMS Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Ausbildung","volume":"32 2","pages":"Doc21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3205/zma000963","citationCount":"27","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing family medicine trainees--what can we learn from the European neighbours?\",\"authors\":\"Elisabeth Flum,&nbsp;Roar Maagaard,&nbsp;Maciek Godycki-Cwirko,&nbsp;Nigel Scarborough,&nbsp;Nynke Scherpbier,&nbsp;Thomas Ledig,&nbsp;Marco Roos,&nbsp;Jost Steinhäuser\",\"doi\":\"10.3205/zma000963\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although demands on family physicians (FP) are to a large extent similar in the European Union, uniform assessment standards for family medicine (FM) specialty training and assessment do not exist. Aim of this pilot study was to elicit and compare the different modalities and assessment methods of FM specialty training in five European countries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A semi structured survey was undertaken based on a convenient sample in five European countries (Denmark, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom). The respondents were asked to respond to ten items about aspects of FM specialty training and assessment methods in their respective countries. If available, this data was completed with information from official websites of the countries involved.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>FM specialty training is performed heterogeneously in the surveyed countries. Training time periods range from three to five years, in some countries requiring a foundation program of up to two years. Most countries perform longitudinal assessment during FM specialty training using a combination of competence-based approach with additional formative and summative assessment. There is some evidence on the assessments methods used, however the assessment method used and costs of assessment differs remarkably between the participating countries.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Longitudinal and competence-based assessment is the presently preferred approach for FM specialty training. Countries which use less multifaceted methods for assessment could learn from best practice. Potential changes have significant cost implications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":30054,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"GMS Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Ausbildung\",\"volume\":\"32 2\",\"pages\":\"Doc21\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3205/zma000963\",\"citationCount\":\"27\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"GMS Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Ausbildung\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3205/zma000963\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2015/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GMS Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Ausbildung","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3205/zma000963","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

摘要

背景:虽然欧盟对家庭医生(FP)的需求在很大程度上是相似的,但家庭医学(FM)专业培训和评估没有统一的评估标准。本初步研究的目的是引出并比较欧洲五个国家FM专业培训的不同模式和评估方法。方法:在五个欧洲国家(丹麦、德国、波兰、荷兰和英国)进行半结构化调查。受访者被要求回答关于各自国家FM专业培训和评估方法方面的十个问题。如果有的话,这些数据是根据有关国家官方网站提供的信息完成的。结果:FM专业培训在被调查国家中存在异质性。培训时间从三到五年不等,在一些国家需要长达两年的基础课程。大多数国家在FM专业培训期间进行纵向评估,使用基于能力的方法与额外的形成性和总结性评估相结合。关于所使用的评估方法有一些证据,但是所使用的评估方法和评估费用在参与国之间差别很大。结论:纵向和基于能力的评估是目前FM专业培训的首选方法。使用较少多方面评估方法的国家可以借鉴最佳做法。潜在的变化会带来巨大的成本影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Assessing family medicine trainees--what can we learn from the European neighbours?

Assessing family medicine trainees--what can we learn from the European neighbours?

Assessing family medicine trainees--what can we learn from the European neighbours?

Assessing family medicine trainees--what can we learn from the European neighbours?

Background: Although demands on family physicians (FP) are to a large extent similar in the European Union, uniform assessment standards for family medicine (FM) specialty training and assessment do not exist. Aim of this pilot study was to elicit and compare the different modalities and assessment methods of FM specialty training in five European countries.

Methods: A semi structured survey was undertaken based on a convenient sample in five European countries (Denmark, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom). The respondents were asked to respond to ten items about aspects of FM specialty training and assessment methods in their respective countries. If available, this data was completed with information from official websites of the countries involved.

Results: FM specialty training is performed heterogeneously in the surveyed countries. Training time periods range from three to five years, in some countries requiring a foundation program of up to two years. Most countries perform longitudinal assessment during FM specialty training using a combination of competence-based approach with additional formative and summative assessment. There is some evidence on the assessments methods used, however the assessment method used and costs of assessment differs remarkably between the participating countries.

Conclusions: Longitudinal and competence-based assessment is the presently preferred approach for FM specialty training. Countries which use less multifaceted methods for assessment could learn from best practice. Potential changes have significant cost implications.

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
审稿时长
25 weeks
×
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