4.1 Article

Radiology teaching for interns: Experiences, current practice and suggestions for improvement

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.12896

关键词

education; junior doctors; radiology; teaching

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Junior doctors are typically responsible for requesting and interpreting diagnostic imaging studies. European studies have highlighted the paucity of radiology teaching leading to junior doctors feeling underprepared for clinical practice involving radiology. There is a lack of published data on the experiences of Australian medical students and junior doctors. This study aimed to describe the experiences of interns in Western Australia to establish whether they felt prepared for clinical practice by the radiology teaching they received at medical school and beyond. Methods This cross-sectional observational study involved a needs analysis questionnaire. The study population included all interns currently employed by Fiona Stanley Hospital (n = 121). Results Radiology teaching at medical school was reportedly mostly informal and infrequent. More than half felt this was inadequate (52%). Current teaching was also reportedly infrequent and 31% reported receiving no radiology teaching in their current rotation. The interns reported requesting high volumes of diagnostic imaging with 66% reporting requesting imaging once a day or more frequently. The overwhelming majority stated their clinical practice would benefit from additional teaching in radiology (98%). Conclusion This study has demonstrated a paucity of radiology teaching provided to interns in a large Australian teaching hospital. As they request and interpret high volumes of diagnostic imaging, skills in this domain are paramount in the provision of safe, effective and timely patient care. The results are being used in the design and implementation of a high-quality radiology teaching programme to improve junior doctors' skill and develop the radiologist-clinical referrer interface.

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

4.1
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