의학교육논단 (Korean Medical Education Review)

  • 제12권2호
  • /
  • Pages.19-26
  • /
  • 2010
  • /
  • 2092-5603(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2093-6370(eISSN)
연세대학교 의과대학 (Yonsei university college of medicine)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

임상수행평가에 있어 채점표와 사이시험의 정보모음 점수 간의 상관관계

Correlations of Information Gathering Scores between Checklists and Interstation Works in a Clinical Performance Examination

  • 김종훈 (인하대학교 의학전문대학원 의학교육실)
  • Kim, Jong Hoon (Office of Medical Education, Inha University, School of medicine)
  • 투고 : 2010.08.18
  • 심사 : 2010.11.27
  • 발행 : 2010.12.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: Until now, students wrote only differential diagnoses and plans during the interstation work (IW) portion of clinical performance examinations (CPX). The contents of history taking (Hx) and the physical examination (PE) were only evaluated using checklists. This study addressed the correlations of Hx and PE scores from the checklists and the subsequent IW to research the necessity of adding Hx and PE sections in to the IW. Methods: One hundred and thrity-three students participated in a ten case CPX, and eight cases were used in this study. Immediately following the 12 minute patient encounter, students were given 6 minutes to write the IW. For the Hx and PE section, students were instructed to write the findings that they considered key information in approaching the patient's problem. The Hx and PE sections of the IW were scored using the same items that appeared on the SP checklist. Calculations of Spearman's rho were performed to find the relationship between the checklist scores and IW scores of Hx and PE sections. Results: Correlations of Hx and PE scores between the SP checklists and IW were low to moderate. Across the eight cases, the median Spearman's rho was 0.37 with a range of 0.14 to 0.54. Conclusion: We suggest that, because SP checklist scores measure only what information the students gather, but not their reasons for doing so (e.g.: relative importance), students tend gather very specific information from the patients. By analyzing of their IW, we were able to explore how students prioritize the important information they have obtained from the patients.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Berg, K., Winward, M., Clauser, B.E., Veloski, J.A., Berg, D., Dillon, G.F., & Veloski, J.J.(2008). The relationship between performance on a medical school's clinical skills assessment and USMLE step 2 CS. Acad Med, 83(10 suppl), S37-40. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318183cb5c
  2. Boulet, J.R., McKinley, D.W., Norcini, J.J., & Whelan, G.P.(2002). Assessing the comparability of standardized patient and physician evaluations of clinical skills. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract, 7(1), 85-97. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015750009235
  3. Boulet, J.R., Rebbecchi, T.A., Denton, E.C., McKinley, D., & Whelan, G.P.(2004). Assessing the written communication skills of medical school graduates. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract, 9(1), 47-60. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AHSE.0000012216.39378.15
  4. Cradock, J., Young, A.S., & Sullivan G.(2001). The accuracy of medical record documentation in schizophrenia. J Behav Health Serv Res, 28(4), 456-465. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287775
  5. Dresselhaus, T.R., Peabody, J.W., Lee, M., Wang, M.M., & Luck, J.(2000). Measuring compliance with preventive care guidelines. Standardized patents, clinical vignettes, and the medical record. J Gen Intern Med, 15(11), 782-788. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.91007.x
  6. Kim, J.H., Lee, K.Y., Yoo, D.M., & Yang, E.B.(2006). The effects of information sharing between students on results of clinical performance examination. Korean J Med Edu, 18(3), 239-247. https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2006.18.3.239
  7. MacMillan, M.K., Fletcher, E.A., de Champlain, A.F., & Klass. D.(2000). Assessing post-encounter note documentation by examinees in a field test of a nationally administered standardized patient test. Acad Med, 75(10 Suppl), S112-114.
  8. MacRae, H.M., Vu, N.V., Graham, B., Word-Sims, M., Colliver, J.A., & Robbs, R.S.(1995). Comparing checklists and databases with physicians' ratings as measures of students' history and physical-examination skills. Acad Med, 70(4), 313-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199504000-00015
  9. Norcini, J.J., Boulet, J.R.(2003). Methodological issues in the use of standardized patients for assessment. Teach Learn Med, 15(4), 293-7. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328015TLM1504_12
  10. Park, H.K., & Kwon, O.J.(2005). Sharing of Information among Students and Its Effect on the Scores of Clinical Performance Examination(CPX). Korean J Med Edu, 2005, 17(2), 185-195. https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2005.17.2.185
  11. Szauter, K.M., Ainsworth, M.A., Holden, M.D., & Mercado, A.C.(2006). Do students do what they write and write what they do? the match between the patient encounter and patient note. Acad Med, 81(10 suppl), S44-47.
  12. Weber, D.O.(2002). Charting a course toward legible medical records: Perfect paperwork can mean financial savings, better patient care. Physician Exec, 28(1), 8-13.
  13. Worzala, K., Rattner, S.L., Boulet, J.R., Majdan, J.F., Berg, D.D., Robeson, M., & Veloski, J.J.(2008). Evaluation of the congruence between students' postencounter notes and standardized patients' checklists in a clinical skills examination. Teach Learn Med, 20(1), 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401330701798253