4.6 Article

Comparing the Performance in Family Medicine Residencies of Graduates From Longitudinal Integrated Clerkships and Rotation-Based Clerkships

期刊

ACADEMIC MEDICINE
卷 89, 期 2, 页码 296-300

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000113

关键词

-

资金

  1. Alberta Health, Government of Alberta

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose In 2008, the University of Calgary implemented a longitudinal integrated clerkship (LIC) called the Rural Integrated Community Clerkship (RICC), which places students in a rural community for 32 weeks. Research indicates that LIC students perform academically as well as or better than students completing rotation-based clerkships (RBCs). However, little is known about how LIC graduates perform in residency. This study compared residency program director ratings of RICC and RBC graduates. Method The performance of RICC and RBC graduates (2009-2011) was assessed using a rating form mailed to family medicine residency program directors at the end of graduates' first postgraduate year. Because of sample size and confounding effects of discipline, only the performance of graduates training in family medicine was examined. Data were analyzed using factor analysis, ANOVA, and chi-square. Results Three hundred sixteen of 399 (80.8%) rating forms were returned. The instrument contained two factors (clinical acumen and human sensitivity) of acceptable reliability (0.90) plus an overall rating of performance. Of 124 (31.7%) students who matched to family medicine, 101 (81.5%) rating forms (RICC = 22/25; RBC = 79/99) were returned. Program directors rated the performance of RICC graduates to be at least equivalent to their RBC peers on both dimensions. On overall performance, 16/22 (72.7%) RICC graduates and 43/79 (54.4%) RBC graduates were rated as stronger or much stronger than most residents in the program, P = .30. Conclusions The performance of RICC graduates was at least equivalent to the performance of their RBC peers.

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

4.6
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