| Autor: |
Detlef Richard Prozesky, Mmoloki Cornelius Molwantwa, Oathokwa Nkomazana, Masego Baitseng Kebaetse |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Rok vydání: |
2019 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
BMC Medical Education, Vol 19, Iss 1, Pp 1-13 (2019) |
| Druh dokumentu: |
article |
| ISSN: |
1472-6920 |
| DOI: |
10.1186/s12909-019-1836-z |
| Popis: |
Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to determine whether the first cohort of graduates from a new undergraduate medical programme in Botswana were adequately prepared for internship. Methods The authors surveyed 27 interns and 13 intern supervisors on site, who rated intern preparedness for 44 tasks using a previously validated instrument. Tasks were grouped according to the seven roles of the physician in the CanMEDS framework and Cronbach α values confirmed internal consistency. To determine the direction of differences between intern and supervisor ratings for tasks Likert scale ratings were treated as interval data and mean scores calculated. Rating frequencies for each role were compared using the χ2 statistic. Reasons for differences between intern and supervisor ratings were explored by determining correlations between scores using the Spearman ρ statistic, and analysing qualitative data generated by the questionnaire. Results Preparedness for all seven roles and the majority of tasks was found to be between ‘Fairly well prepared’ and ‘Well prepared’. The ratings for four roles (Medical expert, Communicator, Collaborator, Professional) differed statistically, but not for the three others (Leader, Health advocate, Scholar). Interns rated their proficiency higher than their supervisors for the tasks in six roles; for the ‘Professional’ role intern ratings were mostly lower. Correlations between intern and supervisors scores were only significant for three roles (Medical expert, Communicator, Collaborator). Qualitative data provided further insights into the reasons for these associations. Conclusions Intern preparedness for tasks and roles varied but was generally satisfactory. Based on the analysis of the data seeming discrepancies in between interns and supervisor ratings were investigated and explanations are offered. For three roles the data indicate that their component tasks are understood in the same way by interns and supervisors, but not for the other roles. The Dunning-Kruger effect offers a plausible explanation for higher intern scores for tasks in six of the roles. For the ‘Professional’ role differences between interns’ internal, individual understanding and supervisors’ external, group understanding may explain lower intern scores. The fact that respondents may understand the tasks they rate differently has implications for all research of this nature. |
| Databáze: |
Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full text from SpringerLink