PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 967938

A method of developing and evaluating a clinical performance program for physical therapy interns.

M L Wightman·L M Wellock
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A method used by interns and supervisors in developing and evaluating a clinical performance program during a 6-week internship in the Division of Physical Therapy at the University of Michigan Medical Center is presented. This method required a statement of educational resources available, establishment of criteria for judging acceptable performance, statement by the intern of his educational objectives, negotiation of a written contract, and maintenance of a log. The 32 participants thought that this was a rational and acceptable program and stated that they would, if given a choice, elect to follow the same procedure again.

Explore related subjects

Clinical CompetenceEfficiencyHumansInternship and ResidencyMethodsPhysical Therapy ModalitiesJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M L Wightman, L M Wellock. 1976. A method of developing and evaluating a clinical performance program for physical therapy interns.. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj%2F56.10.1125

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1997

Determination of the learning curve of the AESOP robot.

BACKGROUND: As the variety of procedures performed with laparoscopic technology increases, the skill levels and equipment demands also increase. Laparoscopic appendectomy, hernia repair, colon resection, and Nissen fundoplication all require someone whose only responsibility is to control the laparoscope and therefore the operative field. This is usually the most inexperienced person on the operating team. The Automated Endoscope System for Optimal Positioning (AESOP) robot provides a means to eliminate the need for the camera person, returns control of the camera and operative field to the operating surgeon, and enhances human performance. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acquisition of skills to control the laparoscope in a satisfactory fashion. METHODS: We selected medical students as our study group because they have no prior experience in laparoscopic procedures. They performed a readily reproducible task in a pelvic trainer with hand control and with the AESOP robot. Their initial times are compared, as is the improvement in their times after 10 min of practice with the AESOP robot. RESULTS: These data show that in this study group use of the AESOP robot was not as fast as hand control but the skill to use it was learned as quickly. Additional features of the robut such as a steady view and the ability to acquire images and return to them reliably are other advantages. CONCLUSION: The AESOP robotic arm provides a stable support for the laparoscope during laparoscopic procedures which can be manipulated by the surgeon. We found that the time required to learn control of the laparoscope manually and with the AESOP robot is equal.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed1997

Does a physician visual assessment change triage?

A prospective comparative trial was conducted to determine the effect of a physician's visual assessment of emergency patients on triage categorization and ability at triage to predict admission. The setting was a university, county, referral center and residency training site. Participants were a consecutive sample of emergency department patients presenting between the times of 0700 and 2300 hours for 5 weeks. All patients were assigned a triage category by an emergency nurse (RN) who saw the patient and by an emergency physician (EP) who had the option of performing a visual assessment. Triage categorization was compared for interobserver agreement (Kappa [kappa] statistic) and by ability to predict admission (MacNemar's test). A total of 3,949 patients was entered. The patients that physicians visually assessed were triaged by nurses as more ill (P < .001). For triage categories visualized by the EP compared with RN categorization, interobserver agreement was 59.8%, kappa = .21. For triage categories not visualized by EP compared with RN categorization, interobserver agreement was 67.9%, kappa = .45 (P < .001). Sensitivity of EPs to predict admission is as follows: all RN triage, 41.3; not seen by EP, 54.9; seen by EP, 69.3. Specificity is as follows: all RN triage, 93.7; not seen by EP, 88.5, seen by EP, 83.9. When physician visual assessment was done, agreement between physicians and nurses decreased by more than half. Physicians who included visual assessment in patient triage were less likely to agree with RN categorization. A visual assessment by the physician improved the sensitivity for predicting admission with an only small cost in specificity.

Clinical Competence↗