目的 以眼科医师为例探索构建临床医师教学评价指标体系,为临床医师执教能力的量化评估提供参考。方法 通过文献研究初步确定临床医师教学评价指标框架,运用专家咨询法及层次分析法(analytic hierarchy process,AHP),由专家分配教学评价指标权重,初步构建临床医师教学评价指标体系。结合模糊综合评价法对已构建的评价指标体系进行应用,分析2021年10月至2022年3月中山大学中山眼科中心同一亚专科(青光眼科)承担教学任务的8名临床医师的执教能力。结果 专家咨询的有效问卷回收率为100.0%,初步构建的评价框架共涵盖3个一级指标,10个二级指标,27个三级指标,所构建的层次分析模型判断矩阵一致性比率CR<0.1,评价指标体系中一级指标的权重最高为“专业水平”(0.490),“教学能力”(0.280)及“教学效果”(0.230)的权重相当。8名临床医师的教学综合评价分数均在80分以上,总体在“教学效果”的平均分(83.4分)低于“专业水平”(86.6分)和“教学能力”(86.1分),个例分析发现①号临床医师在“授课表达”方面得分最低(82.0分)。结论 本研究所建立的临床医师教学评价指标体系一致性良好,“专业水平”所占权重最大体现了传递知识与技能是临床教学中的核心目标。基于AHP-模糊综合评价法分析的8位临床医师教学表现整体达到了优秀水平,能够反映眼科临床医师总体及个人在各教学评价指标上的表现,构建的临床医师教学评价指标体系可作为教学薄弱环节的重要反馈。

Objective Taking ophthalmologists as an example, this study explored the construction of a teaching evaluation index system for clinicians and provided empirical evidence for quantitatively assessing their teaching ability. Methods Through literature research, the evaluation index framework for clinician teaching was preliminarily constructed. The expert consultation and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) were used to determine the weights of the teaching evaluation index and to preliminarily construct the teaching evaluation index system for clinicians. These weights were assigned by experts. Combined with the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation approach, the constructed evaluation index system was applied to analyze the teaching ability of 8 clinicians who undertook teaching tasks in the same subspecialty (glaucoma) of Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center of Sun Yat-sen University from October 2021 to March 2022. Results The questionnaire response rate of expert consultation was 100.0%. The evaluation index framework for clinician teaching includes 3 primary indicators, 10 secondary indicators and 27 tertiary indicators. The consistency ratio of the constructed analytic hierarchy model was CR <0.1. Professional level had the largest weight (0.490) among the primary indicators of the teaching evaluation index system, while teaching ability and teaching effectiveness were weighted similarly (0.280 and 0.230, respectively). The scores of fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of 8 clinicians were above 80 points out of a possible scale. The average score of teaching effectiveness (83.4 points) was lower than that of professional level (86.6 points) and teaching ability (86.1 points). Case analysis observed that clinician ① scored the lowest in terms of lecture expression (82.0 points). Conclusions The teaching evaluation index system for clinicians established by this study had satisfactory consistency, with the weight of professional level being the largest, reflecting that the transmission of knowledge and skills is the core goal of clinical teaching. Based onAHP-Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation approach analysis, the teaching performance of the surveyed clinicians had reached an overall excellence level. In overall and individual fields, this exploratory teaching evaluation index system for clinicians can reflect the performance of ophthalmologists in various teaching evaluation indicators. The constructed teaching evaluation index system for clinicians could serve as important feedback for weaknesses in the teaching process.