학술논문
Assessment for learning of paediatric cardiology trainees in 41 centres from 19 European countries.
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
McMahon CJ; Department of Paediatric Cardiology, Children's Health Ireland at Crumlin, Dublin, Ireland.; School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.; School of Health Professions Education (SHE), Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.; Milanesi O; Paediatric Cardiac Unit, Department of Paediatrics, University of Padova, School of Medicine, Padua, Italy.; Pitkänen-Argillander O; Children's Hospital, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.; Albert-Brotons DC; Heart Center, King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.; Michel-Behnke I; Division of Pediatric Cardiology, University Hospital for Children and Adolescent Medicine, Paediatric Heart Centre, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.; Voges I; Department for Congenital Heart Disease and Paediatric Cardiology, University Hospital Schleswig Holstein, Kiel, Germany.; Sendzikaite S; Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.; Heying R; Department of Paediatric Cardiology, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Source
Publisher: Cambridge University Press Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 9200019 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1467-1107 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 10479511 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Cardiol Young Subsets: MEDLINE
Subject
Language
English
Abstract
Background: Limited data exist on how trainees in paediatric cardiology are assessed among countries affiliated with the Association of European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology.
Methods: A structured and approved questionnaire was circulated to educationalists/trainers in 95 Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology training centres.
Results: 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.
Conclusion: 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.
Methods: A structured and approved questionnaire was circulated to educationalists/trainers in 95 Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology training centres.
Results: 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.
Conclusion: 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.