Cargando…
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
German Medical Science GMS Publishing House
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4446652/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26038686 http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/zma000963 |
_version_ | 1782373473534869504 |
---|---|
author | Flum, Elisabeth Maagaard, Roar Godycki-Cwirko, Maciek Scarborough, Nigel Scherpbier, Nynke Ledig, Thomas Roos, Marco Steinhäuser, Jost |
author_facet | Flum, Elisabeth Maagaard, Roar Godycki-Cwirko, Maciek Scarborough, Nigel Scherpbier, Nynke Ledig, Thomas Roos, Marco Steinhäuser, Jost |
author_sort | Flum, Elisabeth |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4446652 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | German Medical Science GMS Publishing House |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-44466522015-06-02 Assessing family medicine trainees – what can we learn from the European neighbours? Flum, Elisabeth Maagaard, Roar Godycki-Cwirko, Maciek Scarborough, Nigel Scherpbier, Nynke Ledig, Thomas Roos, Marco Steinhäuser, Jost GMS Z Med Ausbild Article 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. German Medical Science GMS Publishing House 2015-05-13 /pmc/articles/PMC4446652/ /pubmed/26038686 http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/zma000963 Text en Copyright © 2015 Flum et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. |
spellingShingle | Article Flum, Elisabeth Maagaard, Roar Godycki-Cwirko, Maciek Scarborough, Nigel Scherpbier, Nynke Ledig, Thomas Roos, Marco Steinhäuser, Jost Assessing family medicine trainees – what can we learn from the European neighbours? |
title | Assessing family medicine trainees – what can we learn from the European neighbours? |
title_full | Assessing family medicine trainees – what can we learn from the European neighbours? |
title_fullStr | Assessing family medicine trainees – what can we learn from the European neighbours? |
title_full_unstemmed | Assessing family medicine trainees – what can we learn from the European neighbours? |
title_short | Assessing family medicine trainees – what can we learn from the European neighbours? |
title_sort | assessing family medicine trainees – what can we learn from the european neighbours? |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4446652/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26038686 http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/zma000963 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT flumelisabeth assessingfamilymedicinetraineeswhatcanwelearnfromtheeuropeanneighbours AT maagaardroar assessingfamilymedicinetraineeswhatcanwelearnfromtheeuropeanneighbours AT godyckicwirkomaciek assessingfamilymedicinetraineeswhatcanwelearnfromtheeuropeanneighbours AT scarboroughnigel assessingfamilymedicinetraineeswhatcanwelearnfromtheeuropeanneighbours AT scherpbiernynke assessingfamilymedicinetraineeswhatcanwelearnfromtheeuropeanneighbours AT ledigthomas assessingfamilymedicinetraineeswhatcanwelearnfromtheeuropeanneighbours AT roosmarco assessingfamilymedicinetraineeswhatcanwelearnfromtheeuropeanneighbours AT steinhauserjost assessingfamilymedicinetraineeswhatcanwelearnfromtheeuropeanneighbours |