Saavedra M A, Villaseñor-Ovies P, Harfush L A, Navarro-Zarza J E, Canoso J J, Cruz-Domínguez P, Vargas A, Hernández-Díaz C, Chiapas-Gasca K, Camacho-Galindo J, Alvarez-Nemegyei J, Kalish R A
Jefe de Reumatología, Hospital de Especialidades Antonio Fraga Mouret, Centro Médico Nacional La Raza, IMSS, Seris y Zaachila s/n, Col. La Raza, Del., Azcapotzalco, CP 02990, DF, Mexico.
Reumatólogo, Hospital Ángeles de Tijuana, Tijuana, BC, Mexico.
Clin Rheumatol. 2016 May;35(5):1299-306. doi: 10.1007/s10067-015-3076-x. Epub 2015 Sep 23.
We aim to study the educational impact of a clinical anatomy workshop in 1st-year orthopedic and rheumatology fellows. First-year rheumatology fellows (N = 17) and a convenience sample of 1st-year orthopedic fellows (N = 14) from Mexico City in the 9th month of training participated in the study. The pre- and the post- workshop tests included the same 20 questions that had to be answered by identification or demonstration of relevant anatomical items. The questions, arranged by anatomical regions, were asked in five dynamic stations. Overall, the 31 participants showed an increase of correct answers, from a median of 6 (range 1 to 12) in the pre-workshop test, to a median of 14 (range 7 to 19) in the post-workshop test. In the pre-workshop test, the correct median answers were 7 (range 2 to 12) in the orthopedic fellows and 5 (range 1 to 10) in the rheumatology fellows (p = 0.297). Corresponding scores in the post-workshop were 15 (range 10 to 19) and 12 (range 7 to 18) (p = 0.026) showing a significant difference favoring the orthopedic group. Our clinical anatomy workshop was efficacious, in the short term, as a teaching instrument for 1st-year orthopedic and rheumatology fellows. The post-workshop scores, although significantly improved in both groups, particularly in the orthopedic fellows, were still suboptimal. Further refinements of our workshop might yield better results.
我们旨在研究临床解剖学工作坊对一年级骨科和风湿病学住院医师的教育影响。来自墨西哥城的17名一年级风湿病学住院医师以及14名一年级骨科住院医师（为便利样本）在培训的第9个月参与了本研究。工作坊前后测试包含相同的20道题，需通过识别或展示相关解剖学内容来回答。这些问题按解剖区域排列，在五个动态站点提问。总体而言，31名参与者的正确答案数量有所增加，从工作坊前测试的中位数6（范围1至12）增加到工作坊后测试的中位数14（范围7至19）。在工作坊前测试中，骨科住院医师的正确答案中位数为7（范围2至12），风湿病学住院医师为5（范围1至10）（p = 0.297）。工作坊后的相应分数分别为15（范围10至19）和12（范围7至18）（p = 0.026），显示出有利于骨科组的显著差异。我们的临床解剖学工作坊在短期内作为一年级骨科和风湿病学住院医师的教学工具是有效的。工作坊后的分数虽然在两组中均显著提高，尤其是骨科住院医师，但仍未达到最佳水平。对我们工作坊的进一步改进可能会产生更好的结果。
