Schmahmann Jeremy D, Neal Marygrace, MacMore Jason
Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA.
Neurology. 2008 Feb 26;70(9):706-12. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000302179.56679.00.
To describe a clinical encounter (Bedside Examination Exercise [BEE]) used for assessment and teaching in the Massachusetts General Hospital neurology clerkship; to compare results of the BEE with the Harvard Medical School Subjective Evaluation Form (SEF) and National Board of Medical Examiners Shelf examination (Shelf); and to develop a grading system that assesses multiple skills and reflects proficiency.
The BEE was administered to 409 students. Final grades were compared with those of 71 students evaluated with the SEF alone. We compared results on the SEF, BEE, and Shelf examination in another 132 students. A composite score was developed, weighted SEF 70%, BEE 15%, and Shelf 15%, to derive the final grade.
The BEE helped limit grade inflation, but did not predict final grade determined by the SEF. Grades from the three test instruments had normal distributions, but different means and SDs: SEF 84% +/- 10.3%; BEE 83% +/- 9.3%; Shelf 69% +/- 8.4%. There was poor agreement among individual students between different tests, even within core competencies. The 70-15-15 composite score had a normal distribution, 81% +/- 8.5%.
The Bedside Examination Exercise (BEE) is useful for assessing and teaching clinical skills. No single test instrument predicts results of another with acceptable accuracy. Use of complimentary assessment tools (BEE, Subjective Evaluation Form, and Shelf) lessens uncertainty in deriving the composite score, and facilitates evaluation of different attributes. The composite score enables a five-tier grading system that recognizes proficiency, rewards excellence, and provides meaningful feedback. This approach could be generalized to other clerkships.
描述一种用于麻省总医院神经内科实习医生评估和教学的临床实践(床边检查练习 [BEE]);比较 BEE 与哈佛医学院主观评估表(SEF)和美国医学考试委员会结业考试(Shelf)的结果;并制定一种评估多种技能并反映熟练程度的评分系统。
对 409 名学生进行了 BEE 测试。将最终成绩与仅用 SEF 评估的 71 名学生的成绩进行比较。我们在另外 132 名学生中比较了 SEF、BEE 和 Shelf 考试的结果。制定了一个综合分数,其中 SEF 占 70%、BEE 占 15%、Shelf 占 15%,以得出最终成绩。
BEE 有助于限制成绩膨胀,但不能预测由 SEF 确定的最终成绩。三种测试工具的成绩呈正态分布,但均值和标准差不同:SEF 为 84%±10.3%;BEE 为 83%±9.3%;Shelf 为 69%±8.4%。即使在核心能力范围内,不同测试之间个别学生的一致性也很差。70 - 15 - 15 的综合分数呈正态分布,为 81%±8.5%。
床边检查练习(BEE)对评估和教授临床技能很有用。没有单一的测试工具能以可接受的准确度预测另一个工具的结果。使用互补的评估工具(BEE、主观评估表和 Shelf)可减少得出综合分数时的不确定性,并便于对不同属性进行评估。综合分数启用了一个五级评分系统,该系统认可熟练程度、奖励优秀表现并提供有意义的反馈。这种方法可以推广到其他实习课程。