• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Education >Identifying inaccuracies on emergency medicine residency applications
【24h】

Identifying inaccuracies on emergency medicine residency applications

机译：识别急诊医学住院医师申请的不准确之处

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

摘要

Background Previous trials have showed a 10–30% rate of inaccuracies on applications to individual residency programs. No studies have attempted to corroborate this on a national level. Attempts by residency programs to diminish the frequency of inaccuracies on applications have not been reported. We seek to clarify the national incidence of inaccuracies on applications to emergency medicine residency programs. Methods This is a multi-center, single-blinded, randomized, cohort study of all applicants from LCME accredited schools to involved EM residency programs. Applications were randomly selected to investigate claims of AOA election, advanced degrees and publications. Errors were reported to applicants' deans and the NRMP. Results Nine residencies reviewed 493 applications (28.6% of all applicants who applied to any EM program). 56 applications (11.4%, 95%CI 8.6–14.2%) contained at least one error. Excluding "benign" errors, 9.8% (95% CI 7.2–12.4%), contained at least one error. 41% (95% CI 35.0–47.0%) of all publications contained an error. All AOA membership claims were verified, but 13.7% (95%CI 4.4–23.1%) of claimed advanced degrees were inaccurate. Inter-rater reliability of evaluations was good. Investigators were reluctant to notify applicants' dean's offices and the NRMP. Conclusion This is the largest study to date of accuracy on application for residency and the first such multi-centered trial. High rates of incorrect data were found on applications. This data will serve as a baseline for future years of the project, with emphasis on reporting inaccuracies and warning applicants of the project's goals.
机译：背景技术先前的试验显示，针对个人居住计划的申请中，错误率高达10％至30％。没有研究试图在全国范围内证实这一点。尚未有居住计划尝试减少不准确申请的频率的报道。我们力求弄清全国急诊医学住院医师计划申请不准确的发生率。方法这是一项多中心，单盲，随机队列研究，研究对象是从LCME认证学校到涉及EM居住计划的所有申请人。随机选择了申请来调查AOA选举，高级学位和出版物的主张。错误已报告给申请人的院长和NRMP。结果9位居民对493份申请进行了审查（占所有EM计划的总申请人的28.6％）。 56个应用程序（11.4％，95％CI 8.6-14.2％）包含至少一个错误。除“良性”错误外，9.8％（95％CI 7.2-12.4％）包含至少一个错误。所有出版物中有41％（95％CI 35.0–47.0％）包含错误。所有AOA会员资格要求都得到了验证，但是13.7％（95％CI 4.4–23.1％）的高级学位要求不准确。评价者之间的信度良好。调查人员不愿通知申请人的教务处和NRMP。结论这是迄今为止居住申请准确性最高的研究，也是首个此类多中心试验。在应用程序上发现大量错误数据。此数据将作为项目未来几年的基准，重点在于报告不准确之处并警告申请人该项目的目标。

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