Cargando…

How was the intern year?: self and clinical assessment of four cohorts, from two medical curricula

BACKGROUND: Problem-based curricula have provoked controversy amongst educators and students regarding outcome in medical graduates, supporting the need for longitudinal evaluation of curriculum change. As part of a longitudinal evaluation program at the University of Adelaide, a mixed method approa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Laven, Gillian, Keefe, Dorothy, Duggan, Paul, Tonkin, Anne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4081487/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24961171
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-123
_version_ 1782324112475029504
author Laven, Gillian
Keefe, Dorothy
Duggan, Paul
Tonkin, Anne
author_facet Laven, Gillian
Keefe, Dorothy
Duggan, Paul
Tonkin, Anne
author_sort Laven, Gillian
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Problem-based curricula have provoked controversy amongst educators and students regarding outcome in medical graduates, supporting the need for longitudinal evaluation of curriculum change. As part of a longitudinal evaluation program at the University of Adelaide, a mixed method approach was used to compare the graduate outcomes of two curriculum cohorts: traditional lecture-based ‘old’ and problem-based ‘new’ learning. METHODS: Graduates were asked to self-assess preparedness for hospital practice and consent to a comparative analysis of their work-place based assessments from their intern year. Comparative data were extracted from 692 work-place based assessments for 124 doctors who graduated from the University of Adelaide Medical School between 2003 and 2006. RESULTS: Self-assessment: Overall, graduates of the lecture-based curriculum rated the medical program significantly higher than graduates of the problem-based curriculum. However, there was no significant difference between the two curriculum cohorts with respect to their preparedness in 13 clinical skills. There were however, two areas where the cohorts rated their preparedness in the 13 broad practitioner competencies as significantly different: problem-based graduates rated themselves as better prepared in their ‘awareness of legal and ethical issues’ and the lecture-based graduates rated themselves better prepared in their ‘understanding of disease processes’. Work-place based assessment: There were no significant differences between the two curriculum cohorts for ‘Appropriate Level of Competence’ and ‘Overall Appraisal’. Of the 14 work-place based assessment skills assessed for competence, no significant difference was found between the cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in the perceived preparedness for hospital practice of two curriculum cohorts do not reflect the work-place based assessments of their competence as interns. No significant difference was found between the two cohorts in relation to their knowledge and clinical skills. However results suggest a trend in ‘communication with peers and colleagues in other disciplines’ (χ(2) (3, N = 596) =13.10, p = 0.056) that requires further exploration. In addition we have learned that student confidence in a new curriculum may impact on their self-perception of preparedness, while not affecting their actual competence.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4081487
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40814872014-07-05 How was the intern year?: self and clinical assessment of four cohorts, from two medical curricula Laven, Gillian Keefe, Dorothy Duggan, Paul Tonkin, Anne BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: Problem-based curricula have provoked controversy amongst educators and students regarding outcome in medical graduates, supporting the need for longitudinal evaluation of curriculum change. As part of a longitudinal evaluation program at the University of Adelaide, a mixed method approach was used to compare the graduate outcomes of two curriculum cohorts: traditional lecture-based ‘old’ and problem-based ‘new’ learning. METHODS: Graduates were asked to self-assess preparedness for hospital practice and consent to a comparative analysis of their work-place based assessments from their intern year. Comparative data were extracted from 692 work-place based assessments for 124 doctors who graduated from the University of Adelaide Medical School between 2003 and 2006. RESULTS: Self-assessment: Overall, graduates of the lecture-based curriculum rated the medical program significantly higher than graduates of the problem-based curriculum. However, there was no significant difference between the two curriculum cohorts with respect to their preparedness in 13 clinical skills. There were however, two areas where the cohorts rated their preparedness in the 13 broad practitioner competencies as significantly different: problem-based graduates rated themselves as better prepared in their ‘awareness of legal and ethical issues’ and the lecture-based graduates rated themselves better prepared in their ‘understanding of disease processes’. Work-place based assessment: There were no significant differences between the two curriculum cohorts for ‘Appropriate Level of Competence’ and ‘Overall Appraisal’. Of the 14 work-place based assessment skills assessed for competence, no significant difference was found between the cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in the perceived preparedness for hospital practice of two curriculum cohorts do not reflect the work-place based assessments of their competence as interns. No significant difference was found between the two cohorts in relation to their knowledge and clinical skills. However results suggest a trend in ‘communication with peers and colleagues in other disciplines’ (χ(2) (3, N = 596) =13.10, p = 0.056) that requires further exploration. In addition we have learned that student confidence in a new curriculum may impact on their self-perception of preparedness, while not affecting their actual competence. BioMed Central 2014-06-24 /pmc/articles/PMC4081487/ /pubmed/24961171 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-123 Text en Copyright © 2014 Laven et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Laven, Gillian
Keefe, Dorothy
Duggan, Paul
Tonkin, Anne
How was the intern year?: self and clinical assessment of four cohorts, from two medical curricula
title How was the intern year?: self and clinical assessment of four cohorts, from two medical curricula
title_full How was the intern year?: self and clinical assessment of four cohorts, from two medical curricula
title_fullStr How was the intern year?: self and clinical assessment of four cohorts, from two medical curricula
title_full_unstemmed How was the intern year?: self and clinical assessment of four cohorts, from two medical curricula
title_short How was the intern year?: self and clinical assessment of four cohorts, from two medical curricula
title_sort how was the intern year?: self and clinical assessment of four cohorts, from two medical curricula
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4081487/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24961171
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-123
work_keys_str_mv AT lavengillian howwastheinternyearselfandclinicalassessmentoffourcohortsfromtwomedicalcurricula
AT keefedorothy howwastheinternyearselfandclinicalassessmentoffourcohortsfromtwomedicalcurricula
AT dugganpaul howwastheinternyearselfandclinicalassessmentoffourcohortsfromtwomedicalcurricula
AT tonkinanne howwastheinternyearselfandclinicalassessmentoffourcohortsfromtwomedicalcurricula