中华医学教育杂志 ›› 2023, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (7): 513-516.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115259-20220916-01186

• 临床教学 • 上一篇    下一篇

不同问诊对象在病史采集教学中的应用效果比较

韦盈盈, 廖景峰, 吴代琴, 唐连涛, 郑红梅, 陈炳秀, 张慧玲   

  1. 贵州医科大学附属医院内科学教研室,贵阳 550001
  • 收稿日期:2022-09-16 发布日期:2023-06-30
  • 通讯作者: 廖景峰, Email: yutangchun@sina.com
  • 基金资助:
    贵州医科大学教学改革研究项目(JG 2022048)

Comparison of teaching effect in history taking course with three interview subjects

Wei Yingying, Liao Jingfeng, Wu Daiqin, Tang Liantao, Zheng Hongmei, Chen Bingxiu, Zhang Huiling   

  1. Department of Internal Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, Guizhou 550001, China
  • Received:2022-09-16 Published:2023-06-30
  • Contact: Liao Jingfeng, Email: yutangchun@sina.com
  • Supported by:
    The Teaching Reform Research Project of Guizhou Medical University (JG 2022048)

摘要: 目的 探讨3种不同问诊对象在病史采集实验课教学中的应用效果,为进一步改进教学方法提供依据。方法 2022年3月选取贵州医科大学2019级口腔医学专业的183名学生为研究对象,采用随机数字表法将其分为3组,分别对应以患者作为问诊对象的真实患者(real patient,RP)组、以学生作为问诊对象的学生标准化病人(standardized patient,SP)组和以教师作为问诊对象的教师SP组,病史采集实验课教学后对3组学生进行病史采集和病历书写考核,采用单因素方差分析和卡方检验比较组间差异。结果 3组学生的病史采集理论考核成绩由高到低依次为教师SP组[(81.07±3.66)分]、学生SP组[(79.51±4.25)分]和RP组[(77.62±5.21)分],其差异具有统计学意义(F=9.27,P<0.001),病历书写成绩由高到低依次为RP组[(75.62±7.19)分]、教师SP组[(75.49±6.65)分]和学生SP组[(74.39±6.04)分],其差异无统计学意义(F=0.63,P=0.534)。结论 在病史采集训练中,不同问诊对象学生获益不同。在进行病史采集教案设计时,可以根据需求选择相应的对象。

关键词: 医学生, 病史采集, 标准化病人, 教学方法

Abstract: Objective To study the students′ satisfaction with the training course of medical history collection for different interview subjects, and provided further improvement of teaching methods. Methods 183 students majoring in stomatology in grade 2019 from Guizhou Medical University were divided into 3 groups by random number table method: the real patient (RP) group with real patients as interview objects, the student standardized patient (SP) group with students as interview objects and the teacher SP group with teachers as interview objects. After the course, all groups of students were assessed by medical history collection and medical recond writing.One-way ANOVA and Chi-square test were used to compare the differences between the groups. Results The scores of medical record writing in three groups from high to low were teacher SP group [(81.07±3.66) points], student SP group [(79.51±4.25) points] and RP group [(77.62±5.21) points], and the difference was statistically significant (F=9.27,P<0.001). Then scores of medical record writing from to low were RP group [(75.62±7.19) points], teacher SP group [(75.49±6.65) points] and student SP group [(74.39±6.04) points], and the difference was not statistically significant (F=0.63,P=0.534). Conclusions Students gain different benefits from medical history training through different interview objects. When designing teaching plans for medical history collection, the corresponding methods can be selected according to their own needs.

Key words: Medical students, Medical history collection, Teacher standard patient, Student standard patient, Real standard patient

中图分类号: