Woods Jennifer L, Hensel Devon J
Section of Adolescent Medicine, University of Colorado/Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO USA.
Division of Adolescent Medicine and Department of Sociology, Indiana University School of Medicine, 107 S Indiana Ave, Indianapolis, IN 47405 USA.
Med Sci Educ. 2019 Jul 31;29(4):977-986. doi: 10.1007/s40670-019-00785-3. eCollection 2019 Dec.
Providers cite lack of training and knowledge as reasons for omitting male genitourinary (GU) examinations. Also, no standard tools exist for assessment of male GU exams despite instruments for female pelvic exams. The objective of this project was to create and validate a male GU assessment instrument to evaluate trainee skill level.
A first-author created 18-item assessment instrument (addressing preparation, exam, communication) was reviewed by a seven-member expert panel of adolescent medicine providers who reviewed items using a 4-point Likert scale. Adolescent medicine faculty completed the instrument ( = 48) for trainees, and differences in assessments were analyzed utilizing chi-square (SPSS, v. 24.0 < .05). Exempt status was granted by the Institutional Review Board.
Nineteen trainees (13 female, 6 male) completed the instrument; no significant differences existed in assessments by gender. Trainees who completed the assessment > 2 times inspected the glans/meatus ( = .045), palpated the inguinal canals ( = .02), and informed of exam steps ( = .04) well compared to their first assessment. There were differences between provider assessments washing hands ( = .001); inspecting pubic hair ( = .000), glans ( = .001), and penis shaft ( = .002); palpating inguinal canals ( = .000); explaining exam steps ( = .000); being professional ( = .000); and explaining exam findings ( = .000). Excluding the creator, only professionalism was rated differently among providers ( = .023).
The male genital exam assessment tool was preliminarily validated as highly relevant to the male GU exam, was not affected by learner gender, and showed learner improvement over time. There are differences between faculty, indicating individual perception of exam items and need for increased discussion before implementing the assessment instrument into practice.
医疗服务提供者将缺乏培训和知识作为省略男性泌尿生殖系统(GU)检查的原因。此外,尽管有女性盆腔检查的工具,但尚无评估男性GU检查的标准工具。本项目的目的是创建并验证一种男性GU评估工具,以评估实习生的技能水平。
由第一作者创建了一份包含18个条目的评估工具(涉及准备、检查、沟通),由一个由7名青少年医学服务提供者组成的专家小组进行评审,他们使用4点李克特量表对条目进行评审。青少年医学教员为实习生完成了该工具(n = 48),并使用卡方检验(SPSS,v. 24.0,P < 0.05)分析评估差异。该研究获得了机构审查委员会的豁免地位。
19名实习生(13名女性,6名男性)完成了该工具;不同性别的评估结果无显著差异。与首次评估相比,完成评估超过2次的实习生在检查龟头/尿道口(P = 0.045)、触诊腹股沟管(P = 0.02)以及告知检查步骤(P = 0.04)方面表现更好。在洗手(P = 0.001)、检查阴毛(P = 0.000)、龟头(P = 0.001)和阴茎体(P = 0.002)、触诊腹股沟管(P = 0.000)、解释检查步骤(P = 0.000)、表现专业(P = 0.000)以及解释检查结果(P = 0.000)方面,教员的评估存在差异。排除创建者后,只有专业性在教员之间的评分存在差异(P = 0.023)。
男性生殖器检查评估工具初步验证为与男性GU检查高度相关,不受学习者性别的影响,且显示学习者随着时间推移有所进步。教员之间存在差异,表明对检查项目的个人认知不同,在将评估工具应用于实践之前需要增加讨论。