Suppr超能文献

尽管美国毕业后医学教育认证委员会(ACGME)的认证时间不同,但程序性皮肤病学和皮肤病理学研究员评估中存在类似缺陷:一项全国性调查结果

Similar deficiencies in procedural dermatology and dermatopathology fellow evaluation despite different periods of ACGME accreditation: results of a national survey.

作者信息

Freeman Scott R, Nelson Cheryl, Lundahl Kristy, Dellavalle Robert P

机构信息

University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado, USA.

出版信息

Dermatol Surg. 2008 Jul;34(7):873-6; discussion 876-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2008.34171.x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Fellow evaluation is required by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Procedural dermatology fellowship accreditation by the ACGME began in 2003 while dermatopathology accreditation began in 1976.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to compare fellow evaluation rigor between ACGME-accredited procedural dermatology and dermatopathology fellowships.

METHODS

Questionnaires were mailed to fellowship directors of the ACGME-accredited (2006-2007) procedural dermatology and dermatopathology fellowship programs. Information was collected regarding evaluation form development, delivery, and collection.

RESULTS

The response rates were 74% (25/34) and 53% (24/45) for procedural and dermatopathology fellowship programs, respectively. Sixteen percent (4/25) of procedural dermatology and 25% (6/24) of dermatopathology programs do not evaluate fellows. Fifty percent or less of program (4/8 procedural dermatology and 3/7 dermatopathology) evaluation forms address all six core competencies required by the ACGME.

CONCLUSION

Procedural fellowships are evaluating fellows as rigorously as the more established dermatopathology fellowships. Both show room for improvement because one in five programs reported not evaluating fellows and roughly half of the evaluation forms provided do not address the six ACGME core competencies.

摘要

背景

研究生医学教育认证委员会(ACGME)要求进行学员评估。ACGME对程序性皮肤病学奖学金的认证始于2003年,而皮肤病理学认证始于1976年。

目的

目的是比较ACGME认证的程序性皮肤病学和皮肤病理学奖学金项目中学员评估的严格程度。

方法

向ACGME认证的(2006 - 2007年)程序性皮肤病学和皮肤病理学奖学金项目的主任邮寄调查问卷。收集有关评估表制定、发放和收集的信息。

结果

程序性皮肤病学和皮肤病理学奖学金项目的回复率分别为74%(25/34)和53%(24/45)。16%(4/25)的程序性皮肤病学项目和25%(6/24)的皮肤病理学项目不评估学员。50%或更少的项目(4/8个程序性皮肤病学项目和3/7个皮肤病理学项目)评估表涵盖了ACGME要求的所有六项核心能力。

结论

程序性奖学金项目对学员的评估与更成熟的皮肤病理学奖学金项目一样严格。两者都有改进的空间,因为五分之一的项目报告不评估学员,并且所提供的评估表中约一半未涉及ACGME的六项核心能力。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验