Objective: To reflectively look at the present methods by which the clinical competence of 5th-year medical students (i.e. interns) in Sun Yat-Sen University (SYSU) are assessed upon finishing internship rotation in internal medicine (IM).
Methods: Current procedures for the competence assessment of end-of-rotation IM interns in the First Affiliated Hospital of SYSU were reviewed, along with a point-by-point appraisal based on the PROFILE approach to structured assessment, and, whenever possible, suggestions for future improvement.
Results and discussions: On a scale of 1–10, with 10 being the best or the most ideal, our marks for current methods to assess end-of-rotation IM interns in terms of being Programmatic, Real-World, Outcome-based, Formative, Impactful, Learner-engaged, and Evaluation-guaranteed were 7, 9, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 1, respectively. The strengths, weaknesses as well as potential solutions in each of the seven aspects are also discussed separately.
Conclusions: Current assessment program for IM internship is strong in being programmatic, real-world, educationally impactful and learner engaged, and has room for further improvement in its time-based arrangements, relative shortage of feedback provision, as well as a systematic lack of quality control measures. 相似文献
It is useful for reviewers of economic evaluations to assess quality in a manner that is consistent and comprehensive. Checklists can allow this, but there are concerns about their reliability and how they are used in practice. We aimed to describe how checklists have been used in systematic reviews of health economic evaluations.
Methods
Meta-review with snowball sampling. We compiled a list of checklists for health economic evaluations and searched for the checklists’ use in systematic reviews from January 2010 to February 2018. We extracted data regarding checklists used, stated checklist function, subject area, number of reviewers, and issues expressed about checklists.
Results
We found 346 systematic reviews since 2010 that used checklists to assess economic evaluations. The most common checklist in use was developed in 1996 by Drummond and Jefferson, and the most common stated use of a checklist was quality assessment. Checklists and their use varied within subject areas; 223 reviews had more than one reviewer who used the checklist.
Conclusions
Use of checklists is inconsistent. Eighteen individual checklists have been used since 2010, many of which have been used in ways different from those originally intended, often without justification. Different systematic reviews in the same subject areas would benefit from using one checklist exclusively, using checklists as intended, and having 2 reviewers complete the checklist. This would increase the likelihood that results are transparent and comparable over time. 相似文献