Frankel Heidi L, Rogers Paul L, Gandhi Rajesh R, Freid Eugene B, Kirton Orlando C, Murray Michael J
Department of Surgery, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-8062, USA.
Crit Care Med. 2004 Sep;32(9):1949-56. doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000134403.44704.91.
Addressing an unexpected shortfall of intensivists requires early identification and training of appropriate personnel. The purpose of this study was to determine how U.S. medical students are currently educated and tested on acute care health principles. HYPOTHESIS/METHODS: A survey of critical care education with telephone follow-up was mailed to the deans of all 126 medical schools. Web site review of medical school curricula for critical care education was performed. Upon invited request, four members of the Undergraduate Medical Education Committee (UGMEC) reviewed 1,200 pool questions of step II of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) given to graduating medical students for critical care content. Descriptive statistics are employed.
Survey response rate was 49% and 88% by the second mailing with Web site review. Forty-five percent of U.S. medical schools responding had formal undergraduate critical care didactic curricula averaging 12 +/- 3 hrs: 60% were elective, 60% taught in the 4th year. Eighty percent of clinical ICU rotations offered were elective. Sixty percent of schools taught 11 key critical care procedures in the 3rd or 4th year; 17% required them to graduate. Nineteen percent of Step II USMLE questions had critical care content; 58% dealt with pulmonary or cardiac disease.
Graduating medical students are tested (and licensed accordingly) on critical care knowledge, despite an inconsistent exposure to the discipline in medical school. The UGMEC has drafted competency-based recommendations for acute health care delivery that encourage mandatory didactic and procedural critical care training. The UGMEC recommends that critical care rotations with didactic curricula be required for undergraduate education and that acute care procedural skills be an important component of these curricula.
应对重症监护医师意外短缺的情况需要尽早识别并培训合适的人员。本研究的目的是确定美国医学生目前在急性护理健康原则方面是如何接受教育和测试的。
假设/方法:一项关于重症监护教育的调查,并通过电话随访,已邮寄给所有126所医学院的院长。对医学院重症监护教育课程的网站进行了审查。应邀请请求,本科医学教育委员会(UGMEC)的四名成员审查了美国医学执照考试(USMLE)第二步中提供给即将毕业的医学生的1200道题库问题,以检查其中的重症监护内容。采用描述性统计方法。
通过第二次邮寄并结合网站审查,调查回复率为49%,第二次邮寄后的回复率为88%。回复的美国医学院中有45%设有正式的本科重症监护理论课程,平均时长为12±3小时:60%为选修课,60%在第四年授课。提供的临床重症监护病房轮转中80%为选修课。60%的学校在第三年或第四年教授11项关键的重症监护操作;17%要求学生掌握这些操作才能毕业。美国医学执照考试第二步的问题中有19%涉及重症监护内容;58%涉及肺部或心脏疾病。
尽管医学院对该学科的接触不一致,但即将毕业的医学生仍要接受重症监护知识的测试(并据此获得执照)。本科医学教育委员会已经起草了基于能力的急性医疗服务建议,鼓励进行强制性的理论和操作重症监护培训。本科医学教育委员会建议本科教育应要求进行带有理论课程的重症监护轮转,并且急性护理操作技能应成为这些课程的重要组成部分。