Considering Criteria to Make Test Questions of Scientific Creative Problem Solving for Science Gifted Education

2004The science gifted education center needs a guideline in order to develop the test questions for creative scientific problem solving for identij!Jing science gifted students, We present the following criteria for planning the guideline: 1) thinking process, 2) inquiry process skill, 3) requiring multiple answers, 4) preferring higher-order thinking ability, 5) preferring non-typical and/or interdisciplinary problems, 6) preferring scietiiiftc contents of testee' level, 7) preferring objective measurement. The importance of each criteria can be varied depending upon the goals and directions of the science gifted education centers.This work was financially suppor ted by a grant (0422-20020003) from Center for Education Research

Development and Implementation of 'Inventories of Evaluating Science Gifted Education Programs':Centering Around SNU Science-gifted Education Center

2005Seoul National University has started science gifted education program since 1998, and asked for evaluating it. The inventories of evaluating for the observers, students, and teachers are developed based on the elements that gifted educators have insisted as gifted programs must have. Nine programs of the SNU Science-gifted Education Center have been checked using those inventories. The Objective of this evaluation is to confirm whether the SNU Science-gifted Education program is reflecting science gifted students' abilities and their educational needs as well, or if it'll be able to achieve its goal of developing students' maximum potential and foster future scientists as self-leading learners. It was found that these inventories for students, observers and teachers were useful in evaluating the science gifted education program. It is expected that checking programs step by step, finding which changes would be needed, correcting and complementing can build up bases of our country's gifted education growth in quality as well as in quantity

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Assessing Progress Toward the Vision of a Comprehensive, Shared Electronic Care Plan: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND: Care plans are central to effective care delivery for people with multiple chronic conditions. But existing care plans-which typically are difficult to share across care settings and care team members-poorly serve people with multiple chronic conditions, who often receive care from numerous clinicians in multiple care settings. Comprehensive, shared electronic care (e-care) plans are dynamic electronic tools that facilitate care coordination and address the totality of health and social needs across care contexts. They have emerged as a potential way to improve care for individuals with multiple chronic conditions. OBJECTIVE: To review the landscape of e-care plans and care plan-related initiatives that could allow the creation of a comprehensive, shared e-care plan and inform a joint initiative by the National Institutes of Health and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to develop e-care planning tools for people with multiple chronic conditions. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review, searching literature from 2015 to June 2020 using Scopus, Clinical Key, and PubMed; we also searched the gray literature. To identify initiatives potentially missing from this search, we interviewed expert informants. Relevant data were then identified and extracted in a structured format for data synthesis and analysis using an expanded typology of care plans adapted to our study context. The extracted data included (1) the perspective of the initiatives; (2) their scope, (3) network, and (4) context; (5) their use of open syntax standards; and (6) their use of open semantic standards. RESULTS: We identified 7 projects for e-care plans and 3 projects for health care data standards. Each project provided critical infrastructure that could be leveraged to promote the vision of a comprehensive, shared e-care plan. All the e-care plan projects supported both broad goals and specific behaviors; 1 project supported a network of professionals across clinical, community, and home-based networks; 4 projects included social determinants of health. Most projects specified an open syntax standard, but only 3 specified open semantic standards. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive, shared, interoperable e-care plan has the potential to greatly improve the coordination of care for individuals with multiple chronic conditions across multiple care settings. The need for such a plan is heightened in the wake of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. While none of the existing care plan projects meet all the criteria for an optimal e-care plan, they all provide critical infrastructure that can be leveraged as we advance toward the vision of a comprehensive, shared e-care plan. However, critical gaps must be addressed in order to achieve this vision