中华医学教育杂志

中华医学教育杂志 ›› 2021, Vol. 41 ›› Issue (10): 941-945.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115259-20201224-01760

• 医学教育评估 • 上一篇    下一篇

住院医师和带教教师对住院医师规范化培训评价的比较

颜勇卿1, 葛志斌1, 胡素佩2   

  1. 1中国科学院大学宁波华美医院骨科中心 315010;
    2中国科学院大学宁波华美医院学科发展中心 315010
  • 收稿日期:2020-12-24 出版日期:2021-10-01 发布日期:2021-09-28
  • 通讯作者: 胡素佩, Email: husupei@ucas.ac.cn, 电话: 0574-83870999
  • 基金资助:
    浙江省医药卫生科技计划(2017KY595)

A comparison of residents and faculty evaluations on standard residency training

Yan Yongqing1 , Ge Zhibin1 , Hu Supei2   

  1. 1Orthopedics Center, HwaMei Hospital, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Ningbo 315010, China;
    2Discipline Development Center,HwaMei Hospital, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Ningbo 315010, China
  • Received:2020-12-24 Online:2021-10-01 Published:2021-09-28
  • Contact: Hu Supei, Email: husupei@ucas.ac.cn, Tel: 0086-574-83870999
  • Supported by:
    Medical Scientific Research Foundation of Zhejiang Province (2017KY595)

PDF (PC)

75

摘要： 目的 对比分析住院医师和带教教师对住院医师规范化培训(简称住培)评价的比较,以期为进一步完善住培教学质量提供参考。方法 采用问卷调查方法,选择浙江省住培基地的2 053名学员和3 141名带教教师为研究对象,并用χ2分析和秩和检验对调查结果进行统计学处理。结果 学员和教师对住培的评价存在一定差异,教师在是否有个体化的教学计划[98.7%(3 099/3 141)比85.7%(1 759/2 053)]、能否满足学习需要[73.2%(2 298/3 141)比53.6%(1 101/2 053)]、带教中提醒观察学习[88.9%(2 795/3 141)比60.4%(1 240/2 053)]、针对专业的教学计划[93.9%(2 951/3 141)比78.0%(1 601/ 2 053)]和评价反馈[93.3%(2 931/3 141)比87.5%(1 796/2 053)]5个方面的评分均高于住培学员,且差异均具有统计学意义(均P<0.01)。在对学员认为教师缺乏和教师认为自己缺乏的问题上,师生差异最大的是科研能力,72.5%(1 489/2 053)的学员认为教师缺乏科研能力,而仅7.1%(222/3 141)的教师这样认为(χ2=2 408.296,P<0.01)。结论 师生对住培的总体评价较好,但是师生之间的评价存在差异。可以通过统一带教标准、加强教师对科研能力的重视和制定个体化教学计划、采取有针对性的师资培训、保障住培基本标准的前提下允许各基地适当提高相应标准4个方面入手,减少师生间评价的差异,提高住培教学质量。

关键词: 住院医师规范化培训, 学员, 带教教师, 评价, 比较

Abstract: Objective To compare the evaluation on the standard residency training from the view of trainees and trainers, so to provide a reference for further improvement of residency training system. Methods This study was a questionnaire survey covering 2 053 trainees and 3 141 trainers. The data was collected and then analyzed with χ2 analysis and rank-sum test. Results There were some differences in the evaluation on the standard residency training between the trainees and the trainers. Faculty's evaluation showed paying more attention to individual teaching plans [98.7%(3 099/3 141)vs.85.7%(1 759/2 053)], the function of this plan to meet specific learning needs of each trainee [73.2%(2 298/3 141) vs. 53.6%(1 101/2 053)], strengthening the observe learning [88.9%(2 795/3 141) vs. 60.4%(1 240/2 053)], specialty-specific teaching plans[93.9%(2 951/3 141) vs. 78.0%(1601/2 053)] and evaluation feedback [93.3%(2 931/3 141) vs. 87.5%(1 796/2 053)]. The differences were statistically significant (all P<0.01). The most significant difference in the evaluation of the teaching content was researching skills, with 72.5%(1 489/2 053) of the trainees believing that the teachers lacked research skills, while only 7.1%(222/3 141) of the teachers did think so (χ2 =2 408.296, P<0.01). Conclusions The overall evaluation of standard residency training in the survey was good, but there were still differences in the evaluation between trainers and trainees. To reduce such differences, we can start by unifying the specific standards, strengthening the faculty's emphasis on research ability and developing individualized teaching plans,having targeted training programs, and allowing each base to appropriately improve the criterion according to its situation under the premise of guaranteeing the primary criterion of standard residency training.

Key words: Standard residency training, Trainee and trainers, Evaluation, Comparison

中图分类号: