Impact of a competency based curriculum on quality improvement among internal medicine residents
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Teaching quality improvement (QI) principles during residency is an important component of promoting patient safety and improving quality of care. The literature on QI curricula for internal medicine residents is limited. We sought to evaluate the impact of a competency based curriculum on QI among internal medicine residents. This was a prospective, cohort study over four years (2007–2011) using pre-post curriculum comparison design in an internal medicine residency program in Canada. Overall 175 post-graduate year one internal medicine residents participated. A two-phase, competency based curriculum on QI was developed with didactic workshops and longitudinal, team-based QI projects. The main outcome measures included self-assessment, objective assessment using the Quality Improvement Knowledge Assessment Tool (QIKAT) scores to assess QI knowledge, and performance-based assessment via presentation of longitudinal QI projects. Overall 175 residents participated, with a response rate of 160/175 (91%) post-curriculum and 114/175 (65%) after conducting their longitudinal QI project. Residents’ self-reported confidence in making changes to improve health increased and was sustained at twelve months post-curriculum. Self-assessment scores of QI skills improved significantly from pre-curriculum (53.4 to 69.2 percent post-curriculum [p-value 0.002]) and scores were sustained at twelve months after conducting their longitudinal QI projects (53.4 to 72.2 percent [p-value 0.005]). Objective scores using the QIKAT increased post-curriculum from 8.3 to 10.1 out of 15 (p-value for difference <0.001) and this change was sustained at twelve months post-project with average individual scores of 10.7 out of 15 (p-value for difference from pre-curriculum <0.001). Performance-based assessment occurred via presentation of all projects at the annual QI Project Podium Presentation Day. The competency based curriculum on QI improved residents’ QI knowledge and skills during residency training. Importantly, residents perceived that their QI knowledge improved after the curriculum and this also correlated to improved QIKAT scores. Experiential QI project work appeared to contribute to sustaining QI knowledge at twelve months.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,029 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».