How to identify and prioritize procedures suitable for simulation-based train Experience from general needs assessments using a modified Delphi method and a needs assessment formula

被引:48
作者
Nayahangan, Leizl Joy [1 ,2 ]
Stefanidis, Dimitrios [3 ]
Kern, David E. [4 ]
Konge, Lars [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Copenhagen, CAMES, Copenhagen, Denmark
[2] Capital Reg Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark
[3] Indiana Univ, Sch Med, Indianapolis, IN USA
[4] Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Baltimore, MD USA
关键词
BRONCHOSCOPY PERFORMANCE; TECHNICAL PROCEDURES; PATIENT OUTCOMES; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; METAANALYSIS; CRITERIA; SURGERY;
D O I
10.1080/0142159X.2018.1472756
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Simulation-based training (SBT) is a revolutionary addition to the education of residents in different specialties. However, the selection of training programs is often reliant on commercially available equipment or on experiential notions, local interests or coincidence. The first step to developing training programs should be problem identification and general needs assessment to ensure that these are aligned with current trainee needs. We describe a stepwise approach to performing a needs assessment following the Delphi process and using a needs assessment formula (NAF) to prioritize technical procedures for simulation training. This technique relies on a panel of experts to gather information and achieve a convergence of opinion. We used three rounds of survey iterations. Round 1: A brainstorming phase to gather all procedures that a newly qualified resident should be able to perform. Round 2: Rating and preliminary prioritization with a NAF including frequency of the procedure, number of doctors, impact, and feasibility. Round 3: Elimination and final prioritization of procedures. The needs assessment identifies and prioritizes procedures for simulation training. It can guide medical educators in the planning of SBT programs to address current trainee needs with the aim of improving the education and training of future doctors.
引用
收藏
页码:676 / 683
页数:8
相关论文
共 32 条
  • [1] Training and simulation for patient safety
    Aggarwal, Rajesh
    Mytton, Oliver T.
    Derbrew, Milliard
    Hananel, David
    Heydenburg, Mark
    Issenberg, Barry
    MacAulay, Catherine
    Mancini, Mary Elizabeth
    Morimoto, Takeshi
    Soper, Nathaniel
    Ziv, Amitai
    Reznick, Richard
    [J]. QUALITY & SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE, 2010, 19 : i34 - 43
  • [2] [Anonymous], 1997, J EXT
  • [3] [Anonymous], 1969, DELPHI METHOD EXPT S
  • [4] Directed self-regulated learning versus instructor-regulated learning in simulation training
    Brydges, Ryan
    Nair, Parvathy
    Ma, Irene
    Shanks, David
    Hatala, Rose
    [J]. MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2012, 46 (07) : 648 - 656
  • [5] Clayton J.M., 1997, ED PSYCHOL, V17, P373, DOI [DOI 10.1080/0144341970170401, 10.1080/0144341970170401]
  • [6] Mastery Learning for Health Professionals Using Technology-Enhanced Simulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Cook, David A.
    Brydges, Ryan
    Zendejas, Benjamin
    Hamstra, Stanley J.
    Hatala, Rose
    [J]. ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2013, 88 (08) : 1178 - 1186
  • [7] Comparative effectiveness of instructional design features in simulation-based education: Systematic review and meta-analysis
    Cook, David A.
    Hamstra, Stanley J.
    Brydges, Ryan
    Zendejas, Benjamin
    Szostek, Jason H.
    Wang, Amy T.
    Erwin, Patricia J.
    Hatala, Rose
    [J]. MEDICAL TEACHER, 2013, 35 (01) : E844 - E875
  • [8] The Delphi technique in health sciences education research
    De Villiers, MR
    De Villiers, PJT
    Kent, AP
    [J]. MEDICAL TEACHER, 2005, 27 (07) : 639 - 643
  • [9] Debecq A L., 1975, Group techniques for program planning
  • [10] Defining consensus: A systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies
    Diamond, Ivan R.
    Grant, Robert C.
    Feldman, Brian M.
    Pencharz, Paul B.
    Ling, Simon C.
    Moore, Aideen M.
    Wales, Paul W.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2014, 67 (04) : 401 - 409