| Popis: |
Abstract Background The surgical clinical practice skill training is an important part of medical undergraduate education. Surgical skills are complex and difficult to master. However, the traditional teaching method has some disadvantages, for example, low student participation, weak learning atmosphere, inadequate mastery of the subject matter. We innovatively put forward the segmented teaching method in the field of clinical practice skills training. The segmented teaching method refers to dividing a specific teaching content into several relatively independent parts and providing segmented practice for each part. This approach enhances students’ learning outcomes.The aim of this controlled study is to investigate the effects of the segmented teaching methods on clinical practice skills training in medical students. Methods 31 medical students participating in clinical practice skill training at The First Affiliated Hospital of University of South China from March to April 2024 were randomly assigned to either the experimental group (n = 16) receiving segmented teaching method or the control group (n = 15) receiving traditional teaching method. After completion of practical exercises, both groups underwent operational assessments, theoretical assessments, Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX), and Student Evaluation of Educational Quality (SEEQ) for teaching quality evaluation. A comparative analysis of the results between the two groups was conducted. Results After implementing the program, there were no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) between the experimental and control groups in theoretical assessment scores, Mini-CEX clinical judgment scores, and SEEQ teaching quality evaluation scores. However, compared to the control group, the experimental group demonstrated better operational assessment scores, higher Mini-CEX scores in history taking, physical examination, professionalism, doctor-patient communication, organizational efficiency, and comprehensive abilities, with statistically significant differences (P |
Full text from SpringerLink