Using the computer-based feedback (CBF) system to investigate the juniorphysicians’s and clinical-instructors perceptions for the benefits of general medicine clinical-instructors training program 99 96
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol3.iss1.299Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study is to examine the clinical-instructors and junior-physicians (residents and interns) perceptions for the general-medicine training program by using bi-directional interactive and self-assessments computer-based feedback (CBF) and paper-based multisource feedback assessment (PBMFA) systems for the efficiency and benefit evaluation.
Methods: Between 2011 January to 2013 December, junior-physicians and their clinical-instructors in the same medical team were enrolled consecutively for monitoring the CBF scores gave by each other after each clinical course. A total of 321 residents, 298 interns and 110 clinical-instructors who participated in the core competency general-medicine training program in 6-months period were included in the study. The CBF and PBMFA evaluations are undergone paralleled to gather the suggested information in different levels of Kirkpatrick evolutional theory.
Results: The results showed that lecturers, being 5-10 years as attending physicians, internal medicine sub-specialty clinical-instructors are most benefit from the general medicine training program. Accordingly, the CBF scores of junior-physicians was positively correlated with the times (> 3-times) of exposure to the medical teams that leaded by qualified clinical-instructors. Both clinical-instructors and junior-physicians have positive attitude to the value of the general-medicine training program. Interestingly, a good consistency was existed between residents CBF scores and PBMFA grades for their core-competency performance. Comparatively, the overall perception of clinical-instructors and junior-physicians for the general-medicine training was very positive.
Conclusions: Clinical-instructors and junior-physicians had positive perception of CBF and PBMFA systems which could give us different information to improve and strength the further core-competency general-medicine training program by appropriate utilization.
References
Barzansky B. Araham: Flexner and the era of medical education reform.
Acad Med 2010;85:S19-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181f12bd1
Burch VC.:Medical education in the 21st century: what would Flexner ask?
Med Edu 2011;45:22-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.45.14.psychnews_45_14_029
Duke DL.:Teaching, an introduction. Mc Graw Hill Int. ed., Singapore, 1990.
Hammond LD.:Quality Teaching: the critical key to learning. National
Hay McBer (2000).:Research into teacher effectiveness: a model of teacher effectiveness. Research
report No. 126. Norwich. The Crown Copyright Unit.6. Robin BR, McNeil SG, Cook DA, Agarwal KL, Singhal GR.:Preparing for the changing role of
instructional technologies in medical education. Acad Med 2011;86(4):435-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31820dbee4
Ward JP, Gordon J, Field MJ, Lehmann HP.: Communication and
information technology in medical education. Lancet 2001;357(9258):792-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04173-8
Slotte V, Wangel M, Lonka K.: Information technology in medical education: a nationwide project on
the opportunities of the new technology. Med Educ 2001; 35(10):990–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2001.01023.x
Sefton A.:Innovative health professionals in a current global context. J
Med Educ 2005;9(2):197-204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420038309-13
ACGME outcome project. Available at http:// www. acgmec.org.
MacAlpine M. An attempt to evaluate teaching quality: one department story. Assessment & Evaluation
in higher education 2001; 26 (6).
Hewson MG.:Theory-based faculty development program for clinicianeducators. Acad Med 2000; 75: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200005000-00024
-501.
Lee FY, Yang YY, Hsu HC, Chuang CL, Lee WS, Chang CC, Huang CC, Chen JW, Cheng HM, Jap
TS.: Clinical-instructors, perception of a faculty development program promoting postgraduate year-1 (PGY1)
residents‘ ACGME six core competencies: a 2-year study. Brit Med J Open 2011; 1(2).
Massagli TL, Carline JD.:Reliability of a 360-degree evaluation to assess resident competence. Am J
Phys Med Rehab 2007;86: 845-52.
Litlefield J, Pankert J, Schoolfiled J.:Quantity assurance data for resident’s global performance ratings.
Acad Med 2001;76: S102-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200110001-00034
Kirkpatrick DL.:Techniques for evaluating training program. Training and Development Journal 1959;
: 3-9
Arnold EL, Blank LL, Race EH, Cipparrone N.:Can professionalism be measured? The development of
a scale for use in the medical environment.
Acad Med 1998;73:1119-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.122116
Lee G, Weerakoon P.:The role of computer-aided assessment in health professional education: a
comparison of student performance in computer-based and paper-and-pen multiple-choice tests. Med Teacher
;23( 2):152-7.
Rodgers KG, Manifold C.:360-degree feedback: possibilities for assessment of the ACGME core
competencies for emergency medicine residents. Acad Emerg Med 2002;9:1300-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1197/aemj.9.11.1300
Higgins RSD, Bridges J, Burke JM, et al.:Implementing the ACGME general competencies in a
cardiothoracic surgery residency program using 360-degree feedback. Ann Thorac Surg 2004;77:12-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2003.09.075
Romano C.:Fear of Feedback: with proper training, even the most stubborn managers and employees
will see the merits of upward appraisal systems. Manage Rev 1993; 82 (12):38-41.
Figure Legends
Figure 1. The impacts of years of being as attending physicians of core-competence qualified clinicalinstructors
on the computer-based feedback (CBF) scores got from junior-physicians [(A) residents and
(B) interns] of the same medical team. R-TCBFbefore/after/I-T-CBFbefore/after: average residents (interns)
to teachers (clinicalinstructors) CBF score before and after general-medicine training program. #P < 0.05 vs.
other corresponding groups.
Figure 2. The impacts of sub-specialty of core-competency qualified clinical-instructors on the computerbased
feedback (CBF) score got from junior-physicians [(A) residents and (B) interns] of the same
medical team. #P < 0.05 vs. other corresponding groups.
Figure 3. (A) The percent changes of junior- -based feedback (CBF) score got from
clinical-instructors; (B) Impact of times of residents or interns exposure to of medical team leading by
qualified clinical-instructors in the 6-month of follow-up. T-R-CBF/T-I-CBF: average teachers (clinicalinstructors) to residents (interns) CBF score.*P<0.05 vs. 1stmonth CBF scores, #P < 0.05 vs. other
corresponding groups.
Figure 4. Self-assessment of junior-physicians to the core-competency training before & after 6-month of
follow up. #P < 0.05 vs. baseline T-I-CBF or T-R-CBF scores. MK: medical knowledge; ICS: interpersonal
and communication skill; SBP: systems-based practice; PBLI: practice-based learning and improvement; P:
professionalism; PC: patient care
Figure 5: Higher teacher to resident computer-based feedback (T-R-CBF) score positively correlated with
-based multi-source feedback a
T-R-CBF scores between different PBMFA grades; (B) the distribution (%) of different level of residents
T-R-CBF scores between different PBMFA grade groups; (C) the predictability of PBMFA grade for
TR-CBF scores. #P < 0.05 vs. other corresponding groups. HH: high honors, H: honors,
S: satisfactory, IC: incomplete, US:unsatisfactory course grade.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2015 Ying Ying Yang, Chia Chang Huang, Chin Chou Huang, Ling Yu Yang, Hui Chi Hsu, Hao Min Cheng, Chiao Lin Chuang, Wei Shin Lee, Ching Chih Chang, Chen Huan Chen, Shung Tai Ho, Fa Yauh Lee
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyrights for articles published in IJIER journals are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author for more visit Copyright & License.