Interprofessional assessment of medical students' competences with an instrument suitable for physicians and nurses.
Competence-based assessment
Competences
Interprofessional differences
Rater cognition
Rater-based assessment
Resident
Undergraduate medical education
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Feb 2019
06 Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
22
05
2018
accepted:
24
01
2019
entrez:
8
2
2019
pubmed:
8
2
2019
medline:
21
5
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Physicians need a set of specific competences to perform well in interprofessional teams in their first year of residency. These competences should be achieved with graduation from medical school. Assessments during undergraduate medical studies are mostly rated by supervisors only. The aim of our study was to compare the rating of core facets of competence of medical students late in their undergraduate training as well as the rating confidence between three different groups of assessors (supervisors, residents, and nurses) in an assessment simulating the first day of residency. Sixty-seven advanced medical students from three different medical schools (Hamburg, Oldenburg and Munich) participated in a 360-degree assessment simulating the first working day of a resident. Each participant was rated by three assessors - a supervisor, a resident and a nurse - in seven facets of competence relevant for the first year of residency: (1) responsibility, (2) teamwork and collegiality, (3) knowing and maintaining own personal bounds and possibilities, (4) structure, work planning and priorities, (5) coping with mistakes, (6) scientifically and empirically grounded method of working, and (7) verbal communication with colleagues and supervisors. Means of all assessed competences and confidences of judgement of the three rating groups were compared. Additionally, correlations between assessed competences and confidence of judgement within each group of raters were computed. All rating groups showed consistent assessment decisions (Cronbach's α: supervisors = .90, residents = .80, nurses = .78). Nurses assessed the participants significantly higher in all competences compared to supervisors and residents (all p ≤ .05) with moderate and high effect sizes (d = .667-1.068). While supervisors' and residents' ratings were highest for "teamwork and collegiality", participants received the highest rating by nurses for "responsibility". Competences assessed by nurses were strongly positively correlated with their confidence of judgment while supervisors' assessments correlated only moderately with their confidence of judgment in two competences. Different professional perspectives provide differentiated competence ratings for medical students in the role of a beginning resident. Rating confidence should be enhanced by empirically derived behavior checklists with anchors, which need to be included in rater training to decrease raters' subjectivity.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Physicians need a set of specific competences to perform well in interprofessional teams in their first year of residency. These competences should be achieved with graduation from medical school. Assessments during undergraduate medical studies are mostly rated by supervisors only. The aim of our study was to compare the rating of core facets of competence of medical students late in their undergraduate training as well as the rating confidence between three different groups of assessors (supervisors, residents, and nurses) in an assessment simulating the first day of residency.
METHODS
METHODS
Sixty-seven advanced medical students from three different medical schools (Hamburg, Oldenburg and Munich) participated in a 360-degree assessment simulating the first working day of a resident. Each participant was rated by three assessors - a supervisor, a resident and a nurse - in seven facets of competence relevant for the first year of residency: (1) responsibility, (2) teamwork and collegiality, (3) knowing and maintaining own personal bounds and possibilities, (4) structure, work planning and priorities, (5) coping with mistakes, (6) scientifically and empirically grounded method of working, and (7) verbal communication with colleagues and supervisors. Means of all assessed competences and confidences of judgement of the three rating groups were compared. Additionally, correlations between assessed competences and confidence of judgement within each group of raters were computed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
All rating groups showed consistent assessment decisions (Cronbach's α: supervisors = .90, residents = .80, nurses = .78). Nurses assessed the participants significantly higher in all competences compared to supervisors and residents (all p ≤ .05) with moderate and high effect sizes (d = .667-1.068). While supervisors' and residents' ratings were highest for "teamwork and collegiality", participants received the highest rating by nurses for "responsibility". Competences assessed by nurses were strongly positively correlated with their confidence of judgment while supervisors' assessments correlated only moderately with their confidence of judgment in two competences.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Different professional perspectives provide differentiated competence ratings for medical students in the role of a beginning resident. Rating confidence should be enhanced by empirically derived behavior checklists with anchors, which need to be included in rater training to decrease raters' subjectivity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30728006
doi: 10.1186/s12909-019-1473-6
pii: 10.1186/s12909-019-1473-6
pmc: PMC6364398
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
46Subventions
Organisme : Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
ID : 01PK1501A/B/C
Références
Ann Intern Med. 2003 Mar 18;138(6):476-81
pubmed: 12639081
Int J Nurs Stud. 2003 May;40(4):427-35
pubmed: 12667519
Med Teach. 2003 Nov;25(6):569-84
pubmed: 15369904
Med Teach. 2007 Sep;29(7):642-7
pubmed: 18236250
Med Educ. 2008 Apr;42(4):364-73
pubmed: 18338989
Acad Med. 2010 May;85(5):780-6
pubmed: 20520025
Med Teach. 2010;32(8):676-82
pubmed: 20662580
Med Teach. 2010;32(10):802-11
pubmed: 20854155
Med Educ. 2011 May;45(5):478-87
pubmed: 21414024
Med Teach. 2011;33(6):478-85
pubmed: 21609177
Med Educ. 2011 Oct;45(10):1048-60
pubmed: 21916943
Med Educ. 2011 Dec;45(12):1181-9
pubmed: 21988659
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(2):92-7
pubmed: 22480891
Clin Teach. 2012 Aug;9(4):228-32
pubmed: 22783854
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2014 Aug;19(3):409-27
pubmed: 23529821
Med Teach. 2013 Sep;35(9):e1447-63
pubmed: 23968324
Perspect Med Educ. 2013 Nov;2(5-6):290-7
pubmed: 24142879
Med Teach. 2014 May;36(5):409-14
pubmed: 24597711
Med Teach. 2015 Mar;37(3):245-51
pubmed: 25523113
GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2015;32(3):Doc35
pubmed: 26677513
J Interprof Care. 2016;30(1):109-15
pubmed: 26709888
Med Educ. 2016 May;50(5):511-22
pubmed: 27072440
GMS J Med Educ. 2017 May 15;34(2):Doc25
pubmed: 28584873
J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Jun;11(6):JC09-JC11
pubmed: 28764199
BMC Med Educ. 2017 Sep 7;17(1):154
pubmed: 28882189
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2018 May;23(2):275-287
pubmed: 29032415
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2018 Oct;23(4):721-732
pubmed: 29556923
Med Teach. 2018 Oct 28;:1-9
pubmed: 30369283
BMC Med Educ. 2018 Dec 29;18(1):322
pubmed: 30594177