4.6 Article

Core competency in mechanical ventilation: Development of educational objectives using the Delphi technique

期刊

CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
卷 40, 期 10, 页码 2828-2832

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31825bc695

关键词

artificial respiration; competency-based education; intensive care; internship and residency; medical education

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Ottawa, Canada)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: We sought to identify and standardize the core clinical knowledge and skills required to care for patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Design: Prospective survey reaching consensus by the Delphi technique. Setting: North American survey conducted anonymously by electronic e-mail. Subjects: International experts in mechanical ventilation, frontline resident educators, medical education experts, and community intensivists were recruited to participate Measurements and Main Results: Fourteen panelists participated (ten content experts, three resident educators, one medical education expert, zero community intensivists). Individual panelists generated a total of 200 educational objectives, of which 109 were duplicates. Of the remaining 91 items, 56 met predefined consensus criteria for inclusion in the final set of educational objectives. The educational objectives spanned a broad range of categories, including respiratory physiology, noninvasive ventilation, lung protective ventilation, weaning, and withholding and withdrawing mechanical ventilation. Agreement among panelists on the items included was high (median proportion supporting item inclusion was 88%, range 70%-100%). Conclusions: There is a consensus that general resident core competency in mechanical ventilation requires a broad range of knowledge application and skill. These educational objectives may help identify and standardize the educational outcomes related to mechanical ventilation that residents should achieve. (Crit Care Med 2012; 40:2828-2832)

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