长期案例:反对其复兴的案例评论…长case {

W. Burn, A. Brittlebank
{"title":"长期案例:反对其复兴的案例评论…长case {","authors":"W. Burn, A. Brittlebank","doi":"10.1192/PB.BP.113.045799","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In their editorial, Michael et al focus on what they see as shortcomings in one important area of clinical assessment of psychiatrists in training and they suggest that methods of workplace-based assessment have failed. However, current thinking in assessment of doctors is to consider assessment systems as a whole and we contend that both forms of assessment - clinical examinations and workplace-based assessments - are needed because they fulfil different needs. This is not to argue that more should not be done to ensure that all who are involved in the assessment of doctors are better prepared for the task or that the current portfolio of assessment methods is complete.","PeriodicalId":89639,"journal":{"name":"The psychiatrist","volume":"4 1","pages":"382-383"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The long case: the case against its revival Commentary on . . . The long case {\",\"authors\":\"W. Burn, A. Brittlebank\",\"doi\":\"10.1192/PB.BP.113.045799\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In their editorial, Michael et al focus on what they see as shortcomings in one important area of clinical assessment of psychiatrists in training and they suggest that methods of workplace-based assessment have failed. However, current thinking in assessment of doctors is to consider assessment systems as a whole and we contend that both forms of assessment - clinical examinations and workplace-based assessments - are needed because they fulfil different needs. This is not to argue that more should not be done to ensure that all who are involved in the assessment of doctors are better prepared for the task or that the current portfolio of assessment methods is complete.\",\"PeriodicalId\":89639,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The psychiatrist\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"382-383\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The psychiatrist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1192/PB.BP.113.045799\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The psychiatrist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1192/PB.BP.113.045799","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在他们的社论中,Michael等人把重点放在了他们认为的精神科医生培训临床评估的一个重要领域的缺陷上,他们认为基于工作场所的评估方法已经失败了。然而,目前对医生评估的想法是将评估系统作为一个整体来考虑,我们认为两种形式的评估——临床检查和基于工作场所的评估——都是必要的,因为它们满足不同的需求。这并不是说,不应该做更多的工作来确保所有参与医生评估的人都为这项任务做好了更好的准备,或者确保目前的评估方法组合是完整的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The long case: the case against its revival Commentary on . . . The long case {
In their editorial, Michael et al focus on what they see as shortcomings in one important area of clinical assessment of psychiatrists in training and they suggest that methods of workplace-based assessment have failed. However, current thinking in assessment of doctors is to consider assessment systems as a whole and we contend that both forms of assessment - clinical examinations and workplace-based assessments - are needed because they fulfil different needs. This is not to argue that more should not be done to ensure that all who are involved in the assessment of doctors are better prepared for the task or that the current portfolio of assessment methods is complete.
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