¿Están acompañados los residentes de Clínica Médica durante su formación?
Objectives: to characterise the teaching and learning process, assessment, and following up process of residents (R) at residences (Re) in the field of medical clinic (MC); to compare public (PRe) vs Private ones (PriRe) in Mendoza. Materials and methods: Protocol, descriptive and comparative study...
Guardado en:
| Publicado en: | Revista Médica Universitaria |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , , , |
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://bdigital.uncu.edu.ar/fichas.php?idobjeto=13784 |
| Sumario: | Objectives: to characterise the teaching and learning process, assessment, and following up process of residents (R) at residences (Re) in the field of medical clinic (MC); to compare public (PRe) vs Private ones (PriRe) in Mendoza.
Materials and methods: Protocol, descriptive and comparative study. Validated, self-administrated and anonymous survey to residents and chief resident (CR) of MC in Pre and PriRe. It included socio-demographic data, training and academic activity, research and R accordance with the institution. Statistics analysis: measures of central tendency and dispersion, Fisher’s exact test and variance ANOVA test.
Results: 86 Surveys. Women 69%, aged 28 ±3.4, R1 39%, R2 21%, R3 19%, R4 16% y JR 6%. Teaching and Research Committee (CODEI) 84%. Resident Instructor (IR) 95% and JR 87%. Clinician consultation (MC) on call (G): no present 60.5%, present 26%, without possibility 14%. Superior maximum responsible G R 73.5%. on-call shared G 4 R 51%. Outpatient care along and without supervision 64.5%. Caring decisions supervised by MP at CE infrequent 41% and admission 53%. Research: scientific publication journal (PRC) 63%, oral presentation (PO) at seminars and conferences 96.5%. Assessment: end-rotation theoretical examination (ET) 89% and practice (EP) 51%, annual ET 96% and EP 70%, final Re ET 82% and EP 60%; there are no evaluated 4%. Having program 92%, the program is partially known 52%, the program is satisfactory fulfilled 48%. Rounds and theorical classes on a daily basis 93%, weekly Ateneo (At) 73%, meetings about mortality (RM) never 72%, weekly bibliographic (BS) 63%, auditor of admission 56%, At of medical mistakes never 47%. 26% participates of continuous training seminars and courses. Evaluation Re: MP commitment and dedication with training, satisfied 44%, In commitment, satisfied 52%, academic training satisfied 50%. Comparative analysis: ReP vs ReE: R/on call 1.6 ±1.1 vs 3.4 ±1.1 p<0.001. Research: PRC 30% vs 68.5% p=0.03, PO 90% vs 97% (pNS), PI 60% vs 95% p=0.005. CODEI 80% vs 99% p=0.03, IR 70% vs 99% p=0.004, JR% 40% vs 93% p<0.001. Assessment: List of procedures made (LRP) 67% vs 83% (pNS). Maximum responsible G: R superior 40% vs 75% p=0.03. BS 30% vs 67% p=0.03, RM, epicrisis y At pNS weekly. MP commitment in the training, satisfied 80% vs 39% p=0.01. In commitment satisfied 40% vs 53% (pNS).
Conclusion: Decisions on assistance in admission are supervised by MP in half the cases, this is less frequent at CE. 1 in 3 R sees patients alone and without supervision and only 1 in 5 can consult. More than half of them have made scientific publications. Although academic activities are made in a high percentage, 72% don’t reflect upon the mortality of their patients. Half of them have never made an Ateneo on medical mistakes. ReP do less research, they have less CODEI and less presence of JR and IR. At ReE there are less MP compromise. Despite this, a high percentage is very satisfied with academic training.
|
|---|
