Evidence based post graduate training. A systematic review of reviews based on the WFME quality framework

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A framework for high quality in post graduate training has been defined by the World Federation of Medical Education (WFME). The objective of this paper is to perform a systematic review of reviews to find current evidence regarding aspects of quality of post graduate training and to organise the results following the 9 areas of the WFME framework.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The systematic literature review was conducted in 2009 in Medline Ovid, EMBASE, ERIC and RDRB databases from 1995 onward. The reviews were selected by two independent researchers and a quality appraisal was based on the SIGN tool.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>31 reviews met inclusion criteria. The majority of the reviews provided information about the training process (WFME area 2), the assessment of trainees (WFME area 3) and the trainees (WFME area 4). One review covered the area 8 'governance and administration'. No review was found in relation to the mission and outcomes, the evaluation of the training process and the continuous renewal (respectively areas 1, 7 and 9 of the WFME framework).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The majority of the reviews provided information about the training process, the assessment of trainees and the trainees. Indicators used for quality assessment purposes of post graduate training should be based on this evidence but further research is needed for some areas in particular to assess the quality of the training process.</p

Evidence based post graduate training : A systematic review of reviews based on the WFME quality framework

p. 80BACKGROUND: A framework for high quality in post graduate training has been defined by the World Federation of Medical Education (WFME). The objective of this paper is to perform a systematic review of reviews to find current evidence regarding aspects of quality of post graduate training and to organise the results following the 9 areas of the WFME framework. METHODS: The systematic literature review was conducted in 2009 in Medline Ovid, EMBASE, ERIC and RDRB databases from 1995 onward. The reviews were selected by two independent researchers and a quality appraisal was based on the SIGN tool. RESULTS: 31 reviews met inclusion criteria. The majority of the reviews provided information about the training process (WFME area 2), the assessment of trainees (WFME area 3) and the trainees (WFME area 4). One review covered the area 8 'governance and administration'. No review was found in relation to the mission and outcomes, the evaluation of the training process and the continuous renewal (respectively areas 1, 7 and 9 of the WFME framework). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the reviews provided information about the training process, the assessment of trainees and the trainees. Indicators used for quality assessment purposes of post graduate training should be based on this evidence but further research is needed for some areas in particular to assess the quality of the training process

Knowledge assessment of trainees and trainers in general practice in a neighboring country : making a case for international collaboration

BACKGROUND: In Europe, a comparable scope of training in GP can be observed especially in the field of knowledge. This feasibility study determines if a knowledge test is suitable in the context of a neighboring country. METHODS: A Dutch knowledge multiple choice test was used after validation of its content in Flanders (Belgium) in the academic year 2010–2011. Satisfaction with the test format was assessed. The test was taken by general practice trainees and trainers. Group scores of trainees in year 1, 2 and 3 and their trainers were compared to Dutch participants as a control group. RESULTS: 80 percent of the items in the Dutch test were transferable to Flanders (Belgium). Flemish participants (Belgium) liked the test format. The scores of all Belgian participants groups were lower than the Dutch participants. CONCLUSION: The results among 1278 participants show that the use of the Dutch knowledge multiple-choice test is feasible in a neighboring country. At present, the individual scores can not be used for high stake decisions for trainees in Flanders (Belgium). If countries collaborate in the area of assessing GPs trainees, there would be an economical benefit due to increased efficiency. It would also lead to greater international integration of the discipline

Video-recording consultations for educational purposes in out-of-hours primary care : patients and physicians are willing to participate

Background: Video-recordings of consultations are used by general practitioner (GP) trainees to enable reflection on aspects of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Typically, these recordings are made during office hours in general practice, but little is known about using video-recording during out of hours (OOH) care, which is an important and distinct part of a GP's work. To be able to record consultations during OOH care (i.e. at the emergency department (ED) and at the General Practitioner Cooperative (GPC)), patients must be willing to cooperate and give informed consent. Therefore, it was of interest to investigate potential barriers in these OOH settings. Methods: A questionnaire on demographics and attitudes regarding consent was administered to patients and physicians at the ED and at the GPC in Sint-Niklaas, Belgium. Results: A total of 346 questionnaires were completed, 23 by physicians and 323 by patients. A majority of the patients (225/286 (79%)) would consent to video-recording the consultation, without physical examination. Almost all physicians (21/23) would agree to participate. Overall, 85% (260/323) of the patients agree when only the doctor was being recorded. Patients were neutral in recording in 79% (88/224) at the GPC and 57% (56/99) at the ED. Shyness or embarrassment was present in 32% (71/224), and 28% (28/99) at the GPC and ED, respectively. We did not find any significant differences in giving consent or feelings between patients at the GPC and ED. Conclusion: A vast majority of both patients and physicians would consent to video-recording their consultation in OOH primary care settings (GPC and ED), with possible concerns about privacy, shame and discomfort

Video-recording consultations for educational purposes in out-of-hours primary care: patients and physicians are willing to participate

<p>Video-recordings of consultations are used by general practitioner (GP) trainees to enable reflection on aspects of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Typically, these recordings are made during office hours in general practice, but little is known about using video-recording during out of hours (OOH) care, which is an important and distinct part of a GP’s work. To be able to record consultations during OOH care (i.e. at the emergency department (ED) and at the General Practitioner Cooperative (GPC)), patients must be willing to cooperate and give informed consent. Therefore, it was of interest to investigate potential barriers in these OOH settings.</p> <p>A questionnaire on demographics and attitudes regarding consent was administered to patients and physicians at the ED and at the GPC in Sint-Niklaas, Belgium.</p> <p>A total of 346 questionnaires were completed, 23 by physicians and 323 by patients. A majority of the patients (225/286 (79%)) would consent to video-recording the consultation, without physical examination. Almost all physicians (21/23) would agree to participate. Overall, 85% (260/323) of the patients agree when only the doctor was being recorded. Patients were neutral in recording in 79% (88/224) at the GPC and 57% (56/99) at the ED. Shyness or embarrassment was present in 32% (71/224), and 28% (28/99) at the GPC and ED, respectively. We did not find any significant differences in giving consent or feelings between patients at the GPC and ED.</p> <p>A vast majority of both patients and physicians would consent to video-recording their consultation in OOH primary care settings (GPC and ED), with possible concerns about privacy, shame and discomfort.</p