PubMed · 12655862
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Louise May. Support systems.. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.17.24.60.s56
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Clinicians need self-directed learning skills to maintain competency. The objective of this study was to develop and implement a curriculum to teach physicians self-directed learning skills during inpatient ward rotations. METHODS: Residents and attendings from an internal medicine residency were assigned to intervention or control groups; intervention physicians completed self-directed learning curricular exercises. RESULTS: Among the 43 intervention physicians, 21 (49%) completed pre- and post-curriculum tests; and 10 (23%) completed the one-year test. Immediately after exposure to the curriculum, the proportion of physicians defining short- and long-term learning goals increased [short-term: 1/21 (5%) to 11/21 (52%), p = 0.001; long-term: 2/21 (10%) to 15/21 (71%), p = 0.001]. There were no significant changes post-curriculum in the quantity or quality of clinical question asking. The physicians' mean self-efficacy (on a 100-point scale) improved for their abilities to develop a plan to keep up with the medical literature (59 vs. 72, p = 0.04). The effects of the curriculum on self-reported learning behaviors was maintained from the immediate post-curriculum test to the one-year post curriculum test: [short-term learning goals: 1/21 (5%) pre-, 11/21 (52%) immediately post-, and 5/10 (50%) one-year after the curriculum (p = 0.0075 for the pre- vs one-year comparison); long-term learning goals: 2/21 (10%) pre-, 15/21 (71%) immediately post-, and 7/10 (70%) one-year (p = 0.0013 for the pre- vs one-year comparison). At one-year, half of the participants reported changed learning behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: A four-week curriculum may improve self-directed learning skills.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: A large body of literature documents associations between the volume of cases a hospital or surgeon treats and clinical outcomes. Most of these studies have used conventional statistical methods that do not recognize the fact that hospitals or surgeons with similar volumes may have very different outcomes because of systematic differences in processes of care, a phenomenon that exaggerates the true statistical significance of the effect of volume on outcome. OBJECTIVE: To describe methods to assess the degree of this "clustering" of outcomes and to explore the impact of available statistical techniques that correct for clustering. DESIGN: Reanalysis of 3 previously published volume-outcome studies. SETTING: Medicare beneficiaries 65 years of age or older undergoing surgery for colon, prostate, or rectal cancer in the population defined by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries during 1992 to 1996. PATIENTS: 3 data sets were analyzed to assess the impact of surgeon volume on outcomes: 1) 24 166 colectomies performed by 2682 surgeons, 2) 10 737 prostatectomies performed by 999 surgeons, and 3) 2603 rectal resections performed by 1141 surgeons. MEASUREMENTS: Volume-outcome trends were analyzed by a conventional method (logistic regression) and corrected for clustering. Two widely used statistical methods for analyzing clustered data, a random-effects model and generalized estimating equations, were used and compared, and the degree of clustering was presented graphically. RESULTS: Substantial clustering was observed in the analyses involving morbidity end points. The 2 statistical techniques produced noticeably different results in some analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of clustering represents variations in outcomes among providers with similar volumes. Thus, in volume-outcome studies, the degree of clustering of outcomes should be characterized because it may provide insight into variations in quality of care.