Suppr超能文献

确定新生儿科可托付的专业活动:一项德尔菲研究

Choosing entrustable professional activities for neonatology: a Delphi study.

作者信息

Parker T A, Guiton G, Jones M D

机构信息

Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.

Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.

出版信息

J Perinatol. 2017 Dec;37(12):1335-1340. doi: 10.1038/jp.2017.144. Epub 2017 Sep 21.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess candidate neonatology EPAs taken from separate but overlapping sets from two organizations.

STUDY DESIGN

Using a Delphi process, we asked that neonatology fellowship directors (1) assess importance and scope of 19 candidate EPAs, and (2) propose additional EPAs if necessary. In round 2, we sought clarification of first round responses and evaluated proposed additional EPAs.

RESULTS

Twenty program directors participated. In round 1, all EPAs were scored as important, but four were overly broad. In round 2, respondents rejected proposed subdivisions of one overly broad EPA, retaining it as originally proposed. Specification of entrustment criteria improved the scope of the three other broad EPAs. However, after specification, they were re-rated as insufficiently important and therefore rejected. Neither newly proposed EPA from round 1 was rated as sufficiently important.

CONCLUSION

The Delphi process yielded 13 EPAs with which to assess capability to practice clinical neonatology.

摘要

目的

评估从两个组织中分别选取但有重叠部分的新生儿科专业能力评估(EPA)候选项目。

研究设计

通过德尔菲法,我们要求新生儿科专科培训主任(1)评估19个候选EPA的重要性和范围,(2)必要时提出额外的EPA。在第二轮中,我们寻求对第一轮回复的澄清,并评估提议的额外EPA。

结果

20位项目主任参与。在第一轮中,所有EPA均被评为重要,但有4个过于宽泛。在第二轮中,受访者拒绝了对一个过于宽泛的EPA提议的细分,保留其最初提议的内容。委托标准的明确改善了其他三个宽泛EPA的范围。然而,明确后,它们被重新评为重要性不足,因此被拒绝。第一轮新提议的EPA均未被评为足够重要。

结论

德尔菲法产生了13个用于评估临床新生儿科实践能力的EPA。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验