基于智能手机的妇产科实习评估的随机试验。

Randomized Trial of Smartphone-Based Evaluation for an Obstetrics and Gynecology Clerkship.

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Univeristy of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Univeristy of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington; Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington.

出版信息

J Surg Educ. 2018 Jul-Aug;75(4):1006-1013. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.11.009. Epub 2017 Dec 19.

DOI:10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.11.009

PMID:29273337

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that compared to paper evaluations, a smartphone-based quick response (QR) evaluation tool would improve timeliness of feedback, enhance efficacy of giving and receiving feedback, and be as easy to use.

DESIGN

We performed a randomized controlled trial of student and instructor experience with two evaluation tools in the OB/GYN clerkship at University of Washington School of Medicine (UWSOM). Sites were randomized to the QR or paper tool; students at QR sites received individualized QR codes at the beginning of the clerkship. Instructors and students completed postintervention surveys regarding the evaluation tool and associated feedback. We compared responses between groups using chi-squared tests.

SETTING

Participating clerkship sites included primary, tertiary, private practice and institutional settings affiliated with the University of Washington in the Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho region.

PARTICIPANTS

Of the 29 OB/GYN UWSOM clerkship sites, 18 agreed to participate and were randomized. Of 29 eligible instructors, 25 (86%) completed the survey, with n = 18 using QR and n = 7 using paper. Of 161 eligible students, 102 (63%) completed the survey, with n = 54 using QR and n = 48 using paper.

RESULTS

Compared to those using paper evaluations, instructors using QR evaluations were significantly more likely to agree that the evaluation tool was easy to understand (100% QR vs 43% paper, p = 0.002), the tool was effective in providing feedback (78% QR vs 29% paper, p = 0.002), and they felt comfortable approaching students with the tool (89% QR vs 43% paper, p = 0.002). Compared to those using paper evaluations, students using QR evaluations were less likely to agree the tool was effective in eliciting feedback (QR 43% vs paper 55%, p = 0.042).

CONCLUSION

Instructors found QR evaluations superior to paper evaluations for providing feedback to medical students, whereas students found QR evaluations less effective for feedback.

摘要

目的

我们假设与纸质评估相比，基于智能手机的快速响应（QR）评估工具将提高反馈的及时性，增强提供和接收反馈的效果，并且使用起来同样方便。

设计

我们在华盛顿大学医学院（UWSOM）的妇产科实习中对学生和教师使用两种评估工具进行了随机对照试验。各站点随机分配至 QR 或纸质工具；QR 站点的学生在实习开始时会收到个性化 QR 码。教师和学生在干预后完成有关评估工具和相关反馈的调查问卷。我们使用卡方检验比较了两组之间的反应。

地点

参与实习的站点包括华盛顿、怀俄明州、阿拉斯加、蒙大拿州和爱达荷州与华盛顿大学相关的主要、三级、私人实践和机构环境。

参与者

在 UWSOM 妇产科实习的 29 个站点中，有 18 个同意参与并被随机分配。在 29 名符合条件的教师中，有 25 名（86%）完成了调查，其中 n = 18 使用 QR，n = 7 使用纸质。在 161 名符合条件的学生中，有 102 名（63%）完成了调查，其中 n = 54 使用 QR，n = 48 使用纸质。

结果

与使用纸质评估的教师相比，使用 QR 评估的教师更有可能认为评估工具易于理解（100%QR 与 43%纸质，p = 0.002），该工具在提供反馈方面非常有效（78%QR 与 29%纸质，p = 0.002），并且他们使用该工具与学生交流时感到舒适（89%QR 与 43%纸质，p = 0.002）。与使用纸质评估的教师相比，使用 QR 评估的学生不太可能认为该工具在引出反馈方面非常有效（QR 为 43%，而纸质为 55%，p = 0.042）。