Cargando…

Learning environment of the Saudi psychiatry board training program

OBJECTIVES: To assess the learning environment of the Saudi psychiatry board program using the Dutch Residency Educational Climate Test (D-RECT) and to explore residents’ perception of different domains of the learning environment. METHODS: This was a descriptive cross-sectional study. The D-RECT in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alshomrani, Abdulaziz T., AlHadi, Ahmad N.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Saudi Medical Journal 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5541187/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28578443
http://dx.doi.org/10.15537/smj.2017.6.18164
_version_ 1783254769903599616
author Alshomrani, Abdulaziz T.
AlHadi, Ahmad N.
author_facet Alshomrani, Abdulaziz T.
AlHadi, Ahmad N.
author_sort Alshomrani, Abdulaziz T.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To assess the learning environment of the Saudi psychiatry board program using the Dutch Residency Educational Climate Test (D-RECT) and to explore residents’ perception of different domains of the learning environment. METHODS: This was a descriptive cross-sectional study. The D-RECT instrument was distributed to all residents at all training sites of the Saudi psychiatry training program. It is a reliable and valid instrument to measure educational environment at the postgraduate level. Mean scores are presented, t-tests, analysis of variance, and post hoc analysis were used to compare subgroups and pearson’s correlation was used to assess relationships. RESULTS: Seventy-eight out of 96 residents responded (81.25%), one third of them were female. Overall D-RECT score was 2.76±0.55. The supervision subscale scored 2.83±0.83, coaching and assessment scored 2.60±0.73, feedback scored 2.00±0.85, team work scored 2.81±0.86, peer collaboration scored 3.54±0.84, professional relations between consultants scored 2.71±0.95, work is adapted to residents’ competence scored 2.71±0.86, consultants’ attitudes scored 2.71±0.86, formal education scored 2.68±0.72, and patient handover subscales scored 3.25±1.06. Female residents scored significantly higher than their male counterparts and there were no statistical significant difference between years of residency. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.936. CONCLUSION: Most of the learning climate domains scored poorly, which necessitates a rigorous plan for reevaluation and improvement. Furthermore, D-RECT proved to be a reliable instrument and could help in evaluation and improvement of postgraduate training programs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5541187
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Saudi Medical Journal
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55411872017-08-10 Learning environment of the Saudi psychiatry board training program Alshomrani, Abdulaziz T. AlHadi, Ahmad N. Saudi Med J Original Article OBJECTIVES: To assess the learning environment of the Saudi psychiatry board program using the Dutch Residency Educational Climate Test (D-RECT) and to explore residents’ perception of different domains of the learning environment. METHODS: This was a descriptive cross-sectional study. The D-RECT instrument was distributed to all residents at all training sites of the Saudi psychiatry training program. It is a reliable and valid instrument to measure educational environment at the postgraduate level. Mean scores are presented, t-tests, analysis of variance, and post hoc analysis were used to compare subgroups and pearson’s correlation was used to assess relationships. RESULTS: Seventy-eight out of 96 residents responded (81.25%), one third of them were female. Overall D-RECT score was 2.76±0.55. The supervision subscale scored 2.83±0.83, coaching and assessment scored 2.60±0.73, feedback scored 2.00±0.85, team work scored 2.81±0.86, peer collaboration scored 3.54±0.84, professional relations between consultants scored 2.71±0.95, work is adapted to residents’ competence scored 2.71±0.86, consultants’ attitudes scored 2.71±0.86, formal education scored 2.68±0.72, and patient handover subscales scored 3.25±1.06. Female residents scored significantly higher than their male counterparts and there were no statistical significant difference between years of residency. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.936. CONCLUSION: Most of the learning climate domains scored poorly, which necessitates a rigorous plan for reevaluation and improvement. Furthermore, D-RECT proved to be a reliable instrument and could help in evaluation and improvement of postgraduate training programs. Saudi Medical Journal 2017-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5541187/ /pubmed/28578443 http://dx.doi.org/10.15537/smj.2017.6.18164 Text en Copyright: © Saudi Medical Journal http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Alshomrani, Abdulaziz T.
AlHadi, Ahmad N.
Learning environment of the Saudi psychiatry board training program
title Learning environment of the Saudi psychiatry board training program
title_full Learning environment of the Saudi psychiatry board training program
title_fullStr Learning environment of the Saudi psychiatry board training program
title_full_unstemmed Learning environment of the Saudi psychiatry board training program
title_short Learning environment of the Saudi psychiatry board training program
title_sort learning environment of the saudi psychiatry board training program
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5541187/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28578443
http://dx.doi.org/10.15537/smj.2017.6.18164
work_keys_str_mv AT alshomraniabdulazizt learningenvironmentofthesaudipsychiatryboardtrainingprogram
AT alhadiahmadn learningenvironmentofthesaudipsychiatryboardtrainingprogram