Department of Paediatric Cardiology, Children's Health Ireland at Crumlin, Dublin, Ireland.
School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Cardiol Young. 2024 Mar;34(3):588-596. doi: 10.1017/S1047951123003098. Epub 2023 Aug 29.
Limited data exist on how trainees in paediatric cardiology are assessed among countries affiliated with the Association of European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology.
A structured and approved questionnaire was circulated to educationalists/trainers in 95 Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology training centres.
Trainers from 46 centres responded with complete data in 41 centres. Instructional design included bedside teaching (41/41), didactic teaching (38/41), problem-based learning (28/41), cardiac catheterisation calculations (34/41), journal club (31/41), fellows presenting in the multidisciplinary meeting (41/41), fellows reporting on echocardiograms (34/41), clinical simulation (17/41), echocardiography simulation (10/41), and catheterisation simulation (3/41). Assessment included case-based discussion (n = 27), mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) (n = 12), directly observed procedures (n = 12), oral examination (n = 16), long cases (n = 11), written essay questions (n = 6), multiple choice questions (n = 5), and objective structured clinical examination (n = 2). Entrustable professional activities were utilised in 10 (24%) centres. Feedback was summative only in 17/41 (41%) centres, formative only in 12/41 (29%) centres and a combination of formative and summative feedback in 10/41 (24%) centres. Written feedback was provided in 10/41 (24%) centres. Verbal feedback was most common in 37/41 (90 %) centres.
There is a marked variation in instructional design and assessment across European paediatric cardiac centres. A wide mix of assessment tools are used. Feedback is provided by the majority of centres, mostly verbal summative feedback. Adopting a programmatic assessment focusing on competency/capability using multiple assessment tools with regular formative multisource feedback may promote assessment for learning of paediatric cardiology trainees.
在与欧洲儿科心脏病学会（Association of European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology）相关的国家中，关于儿科心脏病学受训者的评估方法，相关数据有限。
向 95 个欧洲儿科心脏病学会培训中心的教育工作者/培训师分发了一份结构化和经批准的问卷。
46 个中心的培训师对 41 个中心做出了完整的答复。教学设计包括床边教学（41/41）、理论教学（38/41）、基于问题的学习（28/41）、心脏导管计算（34/41）、期刊俱乐部（31/41）、研究员在多学科会议上发言（41/41）、研究员报告超声心动图（34/41）、临床模拟（17/41）、超声心动图模拟（10/41）和导管模拟（3/41）。评估包括基于病例的讨论（n=27）、迷你临床评估练习（mini-CEX）（n=12）、直接观察程序（n=12）、口头考试（n=16）、长案例（n=11）、书面论文问题（n=6）、多项选择题（n=5）和客观结构化临床考试（n=2）。在 10 个（24%）中心使用了可委托的专业活动。在 17/41（41%）中心，反馈仅为总结性的，在 12/41（29%）中心，反馈仅为形成性的，在 10/41（24%）中心，反馈是形成性和总结性的混合。在 10/41（24%）中心提供了书面反馈。在 41 个中心中的 41/41（100%），口头反馈最为常见。
在欧洲儿科心脏中心，教学设计和评估存在明显差异。使用了多种评估工具。大多数中心提供反馈，大多数是口头总结性反馈。采用以能力为导向的方案性评估，使用多种评估工具并定期进行形成性多源反馈，可能会促进儿科心脏病学受训者的学习评估。
