• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

相似文献

1
Perspectives on Involving Patients in the Teaching and Assessment of Entrustable Professional Activities in Competence by Design.关于让患者参与基于设计的能力可托付专业活动的教学与评估的观点
Clin Teach. 2025 Aug;22(4):e70129. doi: 10.1111/tct.70129.
2
"Just Ask What Support We Need": Autistic Adults' Feedback on Social Skills Training.“只需询问我们需要什么支持”:成年自闭症患者对社交技能培训的反馈
Autism Adulthood. 2025 May 28;7(3):283-292. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0136. eCollection 2025 Jun.
3
Adapting Safety Plans for Autistic Adults with Involvement from the Autism Community.在自闭症群体的参与下为成年自闭症患者调整安全计划。
Autism Adulthood. 2025 May 28;7(3):293-302. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0124. eCollection 2025 Jun.
4
What Matters Most? An Exploration of Quality of Life Through the Everyday Experiences of Autistic Young People and Adults.最重要的是什么?通过自闭症青少年和成年人的日常经历探索生活质量。
Autism Adulthood. 2025 May 28;7(3):312-323. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0127. eCollection 2025 Jun.
5
Community views on mass drug administration for soil-transmitted helminths: a qualitative evidence synthesis.社区对土壤传播蠕虫群体药物给药的看法:定性证据综合分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Jun 20;6:CD015794. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015794.pub2.
6
Stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of factors influencing the commissioning, delivery, and uptake of general health checks: a qualitative evidence synthesis.利益相关者对影响一般健康检查的委托、提供和接受因素的看法与体验:一项定性证据综合分析
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Mar 20;3(3):CD014796. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014796.pub2.
7
Stigma Management Strategies of Autistic Social Media Users.自闭症社交媒体用户的污名管理策略
Autism Adulthood. 2025 May 28;7(3):273-282. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0095. eCollection 2025 Jun.
8
A Pilot Study of Political Experiences and Barriers to Voting Among Autistic Adults Participating in Online Survey Research in the United States.一项针对参与美国在线调查研究的成年自闭症患者的政治经历和投票障碍的试点研究。
Autism Adulthood. 2025 May 28;7(3):261-272. doi: 10.1089/aut.2023.0119. eCollection 2025 Jun.
9
Understanding and Overcoming Negative Attitudes That Hinder Adoption of Reablement in Dementia Care: An Explorative Qualitative Study.理解并克服阻碍痴呆症护理中采用康复护理的消极态度:一项探索性定性研究
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2025 Jun 12;18:3411-3422. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S522515. eCollection 2025.
10
The ultimate power play in research - partnering with patients, partnering with power.研究中的终极权力博弈——与患者合作,与权力合作。
Res Involv Engagem. 2025 Jun 17;11(1):65. doi: 10.1186/s40900-025-00745-9.

本文引用的文献

1
Including patients and caregivers in assessment in the pediatric competence by design curriculum: A national consensus study.将患者及其照料者纳入“设计课程中的儿科能力评估”:一项全国性共识研究。
Med Teach. 2023 Jun;45(6):604-609. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2022.2152661. Epub 2022 Dec 12.
2
Patient involvement in assessment of postgraduate medical learners: A scoping review.患者参与研究生医学学习者的评估:一项范围综述。
Med Educ. 2022 Jun;56(6):602-613. doi: 10.1111/medu.14726. Epub 2022 Jan 17.
3
Exploring how differently patients and clinical tutors see the same consultation: building evidence for inclusion of real patient feedback in medical education.探索患者和临床导师对同一会诊的看法有何不同:为将真实患者反馈纳入医学教育提供证据。
BMC Med Educ. 2021 Apr 29;21(1):246. doi: 10.1186/s12909-021-02654-3.
4
Developing a dashboard to meet the needs of residents in a competency-based training program: A design-based research project.开发一个满足基于能力的培训项目中住院医师需求的仪表板:一个基于设计的研究项目。
Can Med Educ J. 2020 Dec 7;11(6):e31-e45. doi: 10.36834/cmej.69682. eCollection 2020 Dec.
5
The recommended description of an entrustable professional activity: AMEE Guide No. 140.推荐的可委托专业活动描述:AMEE 指南第 140 号。
Med Teach. 2021 Oct;43(10):1106-1114. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2020.1838465. Epub 2020 Nov 9.
6
Programmatic Assessment: The Secret Sauce of Effective CBME Implementation.程序化评估:有效实施基于能力的医学教育(CBME)的秘诀
J Grad Med Educ. 2020 Aug;12(4):518-521. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-20-00702.1.
7
Perceptions and barriers to competency-based education in Canadian postgraduate medical education.加拿大研究生医学教育中基于能力的教育的认知与障碍
J Eval Clin Pract. 2020 Aug;26(4):1124-1131. doi: 10.1111/jep.13371. Epub 2020 Feb 27.
8
Patient involvement in resident assessment within the Competence by Design context: a mixed-methods study.在“设计胜任力”背景下患者参与住院医师评估:一项混合方法研究
Can Med Educ J. 2019 Mar 13;10(1):e84-e102. eCollection 2019 Mar.
9
Programmatic assessment: the process, rationale and evidence for modern evaluation approaches in medical education.程序化评估:医学教育中现代评估方法的过程、基本原理及证据
Med J Aust. 2018 Nov 5;209(9):386-388. doi: 10.5694/mja17.00926.
10
Patient Feedback Requirements for Medical Students: Do Perceived Risks Outweigh the Benefits?医学生的患者反馈要求:感知到的风险是否超过益处?
Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2018 Feb;57(2):193-199. doi: 10.1177/0009922817696464. Epub 2017 Mar 15.

关于让患者参与基于设计的能力可托付专业活动的教学与评估的观点

Perspectives on Involving Patients in the Teaching and Assessment of Entrustable Professional Activities in Competence by Design.

作者信息

Adam Holly, Eady Kaylee, Moreau Katherine A

机构信息

Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

Clin Teach. 2025 Aug;22(4):e70129. doi: 10.1111/tct.70129.

DOI:10.1111/tct.70129
PMID:40524497
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12171676/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Involving patients in teaching and assessing entrustable professional activities (EPAs) within competency-based medical education (CBME) enhances the authenticity of postgraduate medical education and helps develop learners' skills. However, CBME, including Competence by Design in Canada, lacks clear guidance on involving patients. This study examines faculty members' perspectives on involving patients in teaching and assessing EPAs.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with 25 faculty members from 14 Canadian medical schools across eight residency specialties. We asked participants how they envisioned patients being involved in teaching and assessing EPAs during EPA creation, how they thought patients could contribute to teaching and assessing EPAs, and what they perceived as barriers. We analysed the data thematically.

FINDINGS

Faculty members view patients as subjects for teaching EPAs rather than as teachers of EPAs. However, they noted that patients can teach aspects of EPAs through storytelling, if provided the opportunity. They recognized the value of patients as assessors, particularly in formative assessments of learners' nontechnical skills embedded within EPAs. Nevertheless, they expressed concerns about patient involvement in summative assessments and a lack of EPAs focusing on skills that patients can assess. They noted several barriers to involving patients in teaching and assessing EPAs.

CONCLUSION

Our study underscores the pressing need for change and the crucial role of more explicit guidance on involving patients in teaching and assessing EPAs. This is not just a matter of academic interest, but a step towards enhancing the quality of medical education.

摘要

背景

在基于能力的医学教育(CBME)中让患者参与教学和评估可托付专业活动(EPA),能提高研究生医学教育的真实性,并有助于培养学习者的技能。然而,包括加拿大的“设计能力”在内的CBME在患者参与方面缺乏明确的指导。本研究探讨了教师对让患者参与EPA教学和评估的看法。

方法

我们对来自加拿大8个住院医师专业的14所医学院的25名教师进行了半结构化访谈。我们询问参与者,他们设想在创建EPA期间患者如何参与教学和评估EPA,他们认为患者如何为EPA的教学和评估做出贡献,以及他们认为存在哪些障碍。我们对数据进行了主题分析。

结果

教师将患者视为EPA教学的对象,而非EPA的教师。然而,他们指出,如果有机会,患者可以通过讲故事来教授EPA的某些方面。他们认识到患者作为评估者的价值,特别是在对EPA中学习者非技术技能的形成性评估中。尽管如此,他们对患者参与总结性评估以及缺乏关注患者可评估技能的EPA表示担忧。他们指出了让患者参与EPA教学和评估的几个障碍。

结论

我们的研究强调了变革的迫切需求以及在患者参与EPA教学和评估方面提供更明确指导的关键作用。这不仅是学术兴趣问题,更是提高医学教育质量的一步。