Introducing the HRET Patient Safety Fellowship and Action Learning Projects

Baron, David; Leonhardt, Kathryn Kraft; Pagé, Norman

doi:10.1177/1062860608321593

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…외국에서도 의료나 간호에 액션 러닝을 이용한 사례가 있다. 효과적인 환자 안전 교육 프로그램 개발[ 11 ], 임상에서 일을 하는 간호사를 간호 학생을 전문적으로 교육하는 교육자로 양성하기 위한 과정 개발[ 12 ], 간호관리자 교육[ 13 ], 치의학대학 교육[ 14 ] 등에 적용한 사례가 있다. 또한 영국의 한 의과대학의 비뇨기과 임상실습에서는 액션 러닝의 개념을 사용하여 흔한 비뇨기 증상에 대해 시뮬레이션과 온라인 학습 모듈로 학생들이 공부하도록 하고, 비뇨기과 외래 실습을 하게 하여 긍정적인 효과를 얻었다고 하였다[ 15 ].…”

Section: 고찰unclassified

Teaching Clinical Performance Examination Using Action Learning Techniques

Park¹,

Kim²

2012

Korean J Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of this study was to explore what kind of additional information is provided by the descriptive comments other than the rating scales, on the physician-patient interaction (PPI) in the clinical performance examination (CPX) and its feedback role in identifying students' strengths and weaknesses in communication skills. Methods: The data were collected from 18 medical schools in Seoul and Gyeonggi region, which participated in the CPX for fourth-year medical students in 2006 and 2007. In total 12,650 examination cases in 2006 and 12,814 cases in 2007 were analyzed. Descriptive comments from the standardized patients (SPs) were analyzed by content analysis, which includes a 4-step process: coding, conceptualizing, categorizing and explanation. Results: Ten categories (41 concepts) for 'strength' and 11 for 'weakness' (40 concepts) in the PPI were extracted. Among them, 10 categories were the same in both strength and weakness: providing adequate interview atmosphere, attentive listening, providing emotional support, non-verbal behaviors, professional attitude, questioning, explanation, reaching agreement, counseling & education and conducting adequate physical examination. For the 'structured and organized interview', only weakness was described. In 'providing emotional support' and 'adequate interview atmosphere', comments on strengths were more frequently mentioned than weaknesses. However, communication skills that were related to non-verbal behaviors were more frequently considered weaknesses rather than strengths. The numbers and content of the SP's comments on students' strengths and weaknesses in the PPI varied depending on the case specificities. Conclusion: The results suggest that the SPs' descriptive comments on student' performance on the CPX can provide additional information versus structured quantitative assessment tools such as performance checklists and rating scales. In particular, this information can be used as valuable feedback to identify the advantages and dicadvantages of the PPI and to enhance students' communication skills.

show abstract

Section: 고찰unclassified