• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Education >Incorporating patient partner scores into high stakes assessment: an observational study into opinions and attitudes
【24h】

Incorporating patient partner scores into high stakes assessment: an observational study into opinions and attitudes

机译：将患者伴侣的分数纳入高风险评估中：一项对观点和态度的观察性研究

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Volunteer patients (also known as patient partners (PPs)) play a vital role in undergraduate healthcare curricula. They frequently take part in objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE) and rate aspects of students’ performance. However, the inclusion and weighting of PP marks varies, while attitudes and opinions regarding how (and if) they should contribute towards the pass/fail outcome are uncertain. A prospective observational study was conducted to explore beliefs of PPs regarding inclusion of their scores in a high stakes undergraduate OSCE in a single UK medical school. All PPs delivering components of the local MBChB curriculum were asked to participate in the questionnaire study. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and framework analysis respectively. Fifty out of 160 (31% response rate) PPs completed the questionnaire; 70% had participated in a final year OSCE. Thirty (60%) felt their marks should be incorporated into a student’s overall score, while 28% were uncertain. The main reasons for inclusion were recognition of the patient perspective (31%) and their ability to assess attitudes and professionalism (27%), while reasons against inclusion included lack of PP qualification/training (18%) and concerns relating to consistency (14%). The majority of PPs were uncertain what proportion of the total mark they should contribute, although many felt that 5-10% of the total score was reasonable. Most respondents (70%) felt that globally low PP scores should not result in an automatic fail and many (62%) acknowledged that prior to mark inclusion, further training was required. These data show that most respondents considered it reasonable to “formalise their expertise” by contributing marks in the overall assessment of students in a high stakes OSCE, although what proportion they believe this should represent was variable. Some expressed concerns that using marks towards progress decisions may alter PP response patterns. It would therefore seem reasonable to compare outcomes (i.e. pass/fail status) using historical data both incorporating and not incorporating PP marks to evaluate the effects of doing so. Further attention to existing PP training programmes is also required in order to provide clear instruction on how to globally rate students to ensure validity and consistency.
机译：志愿者患者（也称为患者伴侣（PPs））在本科医疗课程中起着至关重要的作用。他们经常参加客观的结构化临床考试（OSCE），并对学生表现的各个方面进行评分。但是，PP标记的包含和权重各不相同，而关于如何（以及是否）它们应为通过/失败结果做出贡献的态度和意见尚不确定。进行了一项前瞻性观察性研究，以探讨PP的信念，即有关将其分数纳入一所英国医学院的高风险本科OSCE中的信念。要求所有提供本地MBChB课程组成部分的PP参与问卷调查。定量和定性数据分别使用描述性统计和框架分析进行分析。 160个PP中有50个（31％的答复率）完成了问卷; 70％的人参加了欧安组织的最后一年。 30（60％）的人认为自己的分数应该纳入学生的总成绩中，而28％的人不确定。纳入的主要原因是对患者观点的认可（31％）以及他们评估态度和专业水平的能力（27％），而拒绝纳入的原因包括缺乏PP资格/培训（18％）以及对一致性的关注（14） ％）。大多数PP不确定他们应该贡献多少分，尽管许多人认为总分的5-10％是合理的。大多数受访者（70％）认为，全球PP分数低不会导致自动失败，许多受访者（62％）承认在加入商标之前，需要进行进一步的培训。这些数据表明，大多数受访者认为通过在高分OSCE的学生的总体评估中贡献分数来“正规化他们的专业知识”是合理的，尽管他们认为应该代表的比例是可变的。一些人担心将标记用于进度决定可能会改变PP的响应模式。因此，使用同时包含和不包含PP标记的历史数据来比较结果（即通过/未通过状态）似乎是合理的，以评估这样做的效果。还需要进一步关注现有的PP培训计划，以便就如何对学生进行总体评分以确保有效性和一致性提供明确的指导。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号