Suppr超能文献

日常接触卡片——评估记录评估的质量。

Daily Encounter Cards-Evaluating the Quality of Documented Assessments.

作者信息

Cheung Warren J, Dudek Nancy, Wood Timothy J, Frank Jason R

出版信息

J Grad Med Educ. 2016 Oct;8(4):601-604. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-15-00505.1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Concerns over the quality of work-based assessment (WBA) completion has resulted in faculty development and rater training initiatives. Daily encounter cards (DECs) are a common form of WBA used in ambulatory care and shift work settings. A tool is needed to evaluate initiatives aimed at improving the quality of completion of this widely used form of WBA.

OBJECTIVE

The completed clinical evaluation report rating (CCERR) was designed to provide a measure of the quality of documented assessments on in-training evaluation reports. The purpose of this study was to provide validity evidence to support using the CCERR to assess the quality of DEC completion.

METHODS

Six experts in resident assessment grouped 60 DECs into 3 quality categories (high, average, and poor) based on how informative each DEC was for reporting judgments of the resident's performance. Eight supervisors (blinded to the expert groupings) scored the 10 most representative DECs in each group using the CCERR. Mean scores were compared to determine if the CCERR could discriminate based on DEC quality.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences in CCERR scores were observed between all quality groups ( < .001). A generalizability analysis demonstrated the majority of score variation was due to differences in DECs. The reliability with a single rater was 0.95.

CONCLUSIONS

The CCERR is a reliable and valid tool to evaluate DEC quality. It can serve as an outcome measure for studying interventions targeted at improving the quality of assessments documented on DECs.

摘要

背景

对基于工作的评估(WBA)完成质量的担忧促使了教师发展和评分者培训计划的开展。日常会诊卡片(DEC)是门诊护理和轮班工作环境中常用的一种WBA形式。需要一种工具来评估旨在提高这种广泛使用的WBA形式完成质量的计划。

目的

完成的临床评估报告评分(CCERR)旨在衡量培训期间评估报告中记录的评估质量。本研究的目的是提供效度证据,以支持使用CCERR来评估DEC完成的质量。

方法

六位住院医师评估专家根据每份DEC对报告住院医师表现判断的信息量,将60份DEC分为3个质量类别(高、中、低)。八位主管(对专家分组不知情)使用CCERR对每组中最具代表性的10份DEC进行评分。比较平均得分,以确定CCERR是否能根据DEC质量进行区分。

结果

在所有质量组之间观察到CCERR得分存在统计学显著差异(<0.001)。一项可推广性分析表明,大部分得分差异是由于DEC的差异所致。单个评分者的信度为0.95。

结论

CCERR是评估DEC质量的可靠且有效的工具。它可以作为一种结果指标,用于研究旨在提高DEC上记录的评估质量的干预措施。

相似文献

1
Daily Encounter Cards-Evaluating the Quality of Documented Assessments.
J Grad Med Educ. 2016 Oct;8(4):601-604. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-15-00505.1.
2
Supervisor-trainee continuity and the quality of work-based assessments.
Med Educ. 2017 Dec;51(12):1260-1268. doi: 10.1111/medu.13415. Epub 2017 Oct 3.
4
Daily Evaluation Cards Are Superior for Student Assessment Compared to Single Rater In-Training Evaluations.
Med Sci Educ. 2019 Dec 12;30(1):203-209. doi: 10.1007/s40670-019-00855-6. eCollection 2020 Mar.
7
Exploring gender influences in the quality of workplace-based assessments.
CJEM. 2023 Jun;25(6):475-480. doi: 10.1007/s43678-023-00499-x. Epub 2023 May 11.
8
Quality in-training evaluation reports--does feedback drive faculty performance?
Acad Med. 2013 Aug;88(8):1129-34. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318299394c.
9
How Reliable are Single-Question Workplace-Based Assessments in Surgery?
J Surg Educ. 2024 Jul;81(7):967-972. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2024.03.015. Epub 2024 May 29.
10
Does faculty development influence the quality of in-training evaluation reports in pharmacy?
BMC Med Educ. 2017 Nov 21;17(1):222. doi: 10.1186/s12909-017-1054-5.

引用本文的文献

1
"But Why?": Explanatory Feedback Is a Reliable Marker of High-Quality Narrative Assessment of Surgical Performance.
Acad Med. 2025 May 1;100(5):614-620. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000005985. Epub 2025 Jan 31.
3
Faculty Development- Is Some Better Than None?
MedEdPublish (2016). 2019 Jan 22;8:18. doi: 10.15694/mep.2019.000018.1. eCollection 2019.
4
Exploring gender influences in the quality of workplace-based assessments.
CJEM. 2023 Jun;25(6):475-480. doi: 10.1007/s43678-023-00499-x. Epub 2023 May 11.
6
Daily Evaluation Cards Are Superior for Student Assessment Compared to Single Rater In-Training Evaluations.
Med Sci Educ. 2019 Dec 12;30(1):203-209. doi: 10.1007/s40670-019-00855-6. eCollection 2020 Mar.
7
Feedback on feedback: a two-way street between residents and preceptors.
Can Med Educ J. 2021 Feb 26;12(1):e32-e45. doi: 10.36834/cmej.69913. eCollection 2021 Feb.
10
Point-of-Encounter Assessment: Using Health Belief Model Constructs to Change Grading Behaviors.
J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2019 Apr 30;6:2382120519840358. doi: 10.1177/2382120519840358. eCollection 2019 Jan-Dec.

本文引用的文献

2
Quality in-training evaluation reports--does feedback drive faculty performance?
Acad Med. 2013 Aug;88(8):1129-34. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318299394c.
3
The reliability of encounter cards to assess the CanMEDS roles.
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2013 Dec;18(5):987-96. doi: 10.1007/s10459-012-9440-6. Epub 2013 Jan 11.
4
Quality evaluation reports: Can a faculty development program make a difference?
Med Teach. 2012;34(11):e725-31. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.689444.
6
The role of assessment in competency-based medical education.
Med Teach. 2010;32(8):676-82. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2010.500704.
7
Competency-based medical education in postgraduate medical education.
Med Teach. 2010;32(8):651-6. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2010.500709.
8
Resident evaluations: the use of daily evaluation forms in rheumatology ambulatory care.
J Rheumatol. 2009 Jun;36(6):1298-303. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.080951. Epub 2009 Mar 30.
10
Assessing the quality of supervisors' completed clinical evaluation reports.
Med Educ. 2008 Aug;42(8):816-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03105.x. Epub 2008 Jun 14.

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