4.2 Article

Administration and leadership competencies: establishment of a national consensus for emergency medicine

期刊

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 17, 期 2, 页码 107-114

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.2310/8000.2013.131270

关键词

administration; CanMEDS; education; emergency medicine; leadership

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada requires emergency medicine (EM) residency programs to meet training objectives relating to administration and leadership. The purpose of this study was to establish a national consensus on the competencies for inclusion in an EM administration and leadership curriculum. Methods: A modified Delphi process involving two iterative rounds of an electronic survey was used to achieve consensus on competencies for inclusion in an EM administration and leadership curriculum. An initial list of competencies was compiled using peer-reviewed and grey literature. The participants included 14 EM residency program directors and 43 leadership and administration experts from across Canada who were recruited using a snowball technique. The proposed competencies were organized using the CanMEDS Physician Competency Framework and presented in English or French. Consensus was defined a priori as. 70% agreement. Results: Nearly all (13 of 14) of the institutions with an FRCPC EM program had at least one participant complete both surveys. Thirty-five of 57 (61%) participants completed round 1, and 30 (53%) participants completed both rounds. Participants suggested an additional 16 competencies in round 1. The results of round 1 informed the decisions in round 2. Fifty-nine of 109 (54.1%) competencies achieved consensus for inclusion. Conclusions: Based on a national modified Delphi process, we describe 59 competencies for inclusion in an EM administration and leadership curriculum that was arranged by CanMEDS Role. EM educators may consider these competencies when designing local curricula.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据