眼科 ›› 2024, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (2): 150-153.doi: 10.13281/j.cnki.issn.1004-4469.2024.02.013

• 教学园地 • 上一篇    下一篇

新的眼科见习考核方法的应用探索

史翔宇  王乙迪  周军  秦毅   

  1. 首都医科大学附属北京同仁医院  北京同仁眼科中心  眼科学与视觉科学北京市重点实验室,北京100730
  • 收稿日期:2024-03-09 出版日期:2024-03-25 发布日期:2024-03-23
  • 通讯作者: 秦毅,Email:qinyi_celina@sina.com
  • 基金资助:
    首都医科大学教育教学改革研究课题(2023JYY220)

Exploration of the application of a new ophthalmic probationary assessment method

Shi Xiangyu, Wang Yidi, Zhou Jun, Qin Yi   

  1. Beijing Tongren Eye Center, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University; Beijing Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Beijing 100730, China
  • Received:2024-03-09 Online:2024-03-25 Published:2024-03-23
  • Contact: Qin Yi, Email: qinyi_celina@sina.com
  • Supported by:
    Research on Education and Teaching Reform Project from Capital Medical University (2023JYY220)

摘要:  目的  探索一种新的以临床为导向的眼科见习考核方法的应用效果。设计  前瞻性比较性教学研究。研究对象  眼科见习培训研究生22名。方法 学生完成为期4周的眼科规范见习教学培训后,使用自主设计的以临床为导向的考核评分表对学生进行考核。此表共7项,包括裂隙灯操作、眼科手术显微镜操作、外眼检查、直接检眼镜使用、复视像检查、出诊电子系统应用、门诊病历书写,涵盖临床工作的基本内容(常见疾病诊断及处置、出诊系统应用、病历书写、手术显微镜缝合操作等),每项满分100分。22名学生按数字表法随机分为两组,考核A组与非考核B组。4周见习结束,A组进行考核,并由见习带教老师根据失分项逐一讲解。随后全部学生进入眼科临床轮转,工作4周后两组学生进行全部七项同样的考核,对比两组的考核得分。主要指七项考核分数。结果 经过4周的临床工作,两组学生七项考核平均成绩,A组得分94.47±1.96,明显高于B组的86.51±5.38(t=12.83,P<0.001)。七项考核的单项得分,A组均高于B组(P均<0.05)。其中,A组裂隙灯操作得分96.0±1.9、眼科手术显微镜操作94.0±2.0、外眼检查95.0±2.0、直接检眼镜使用94.0±1.7、复视像检查93.8±2.4、出诊电子系统应用95.2±1.5、门诊病历书写94.0±2.1,B组得分分别为89.0±3.9、88.0±4.9、83.0±5.0、83.0±1.8、83.0±7.1、91.0±3.2、87.0±3.0。结论 本研究设计的见习考核方法能切实有效地提高眼科见习培训研究生的临床技能及综合工作能力。(眼科,2024,33: 150-153)

关键词: 眼科见习, 眼科教育

Abstract:  Objective To explore the application effect of a new ophthalmic probationary assessment method. Design Prospective comparative teaching study. Participants 22 ophthalmic graduate students in probationary training. Methods After completing standardized training for 4 weeks, a clinical oriented assessment method with a total of 7 items scoring 100 points for each, covering the basic content of clinical work (diagnosis and management of common diseases, application of electronic consultation system, medical record writing, and surgical microscope suturing operation) were designed and applied.  There were slit lamp operation, surgical microscope operation, external eye examination, direct ophthalmoscope, diplopia imaging examination, electronic system application for consultation, outpatient medical record writing. 22 students were randomly divided into two groups, assessment group A and non-assessment group B. At the end of the probation, group A conducted all assessment, and the teacher provided a detailed explanation for error afterwards. Immediately after, all students started clinical work for 4 weeks, and all students participated in the same assessment. The scores of two groups were compared. Main Outcome Measures Assessment scores. Results After 4 weeks clinical work, the average score of seven assessments for two groups was 94.47±1.96 in group A, which was significantly higher than group B's 86.51±5.38 (t=12.83, P<0.001). Group A scored higher than Group B in each assessment (all P<0.05). For slit lamp operation, the score was 96.0±1.9 in group A and 89.0±3.9 in group B. For surgical microscope operation, the score was 94.0±2.0 in group A and 88.0±4.9 in group B. For external eye examination, the score was 95.0±2.0 in group A and 83.0±5.0 in group B. For direct ophthalmoscope, the score was 94.0±1.7 in group A and 83.0±1.8 in group B. For diplopia imaging examination, the score was 93.8±2.4 in group A and 83.0±7.1 in group B. For electronic system application for consultation, the score was 95.2±1.5 in group A and 91.0±3.2 in group B. For outpatient medical record writing, the score was 94.0±2.1 in group A and 87.0±3.0 in group B. Conclusion The ophthalmic probationary assessment method in this study can improve the effect of clinical learning in ophthalmic graduate students. (Ophthalmol CHN, 2024, 33: 150-153)

Key words: ophthalmic probation, ophthalmological education