• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

The work place educational climate in gynecological oncology fellowships across Europe: the impact of accreditation

J. Piek, M. Bossart, K. Boor, M. Halaska, D. Haidopoulos, I. Zapardiel, J. Grabowski, V. Kesic, D. Cibula, N. Colombo, R. Verheijen, R. Manchanda,

. 2015 ; 25 (1) : 180-90.

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc15031571

BACKGROUND: A good educational climate/environment in the workplace is essential for developing high-quality medical (sub)specialists. These data are lacking for gynecological oncology training. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the educational climate in gynecological oncology training throughout Europe and the factors affecting it. METHODS: A Web-based anonymous survey sent to ENYGO (European Network of Young Gynecological Oncologists) members/trainees to assess gynecological oncology training. This included sociodemographic information, details regarding training posts, and a 50-item validated Dutch Residency Educational Climate Test (D-RECT) questionnaire with 11 subscales (1-5 Likert scale) to assess the educational climate. The χ test was used for evaluating categorical variables, and the Mann-Whitney U (nonparametric) test was used for continuous variables between 2 independent groups. Cronbach α assessed the questionnaire reliability. Multivariable linear regression assessed the effect of variables on D-RECT outcome subscales. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen gynecological oncological fellows responded. The D-RECT questionnaire was extremely reliable for assessing the educational environment in gynecological oncology (subscales' Cronbach α, 0.82-0.96). Overall, trainees do not seem to receive adequate/effective constructive feedback during training. The overall educational climate (supervision, coaching/assessment, feedback, teamwork, interconsultant relationships, formal education, role of the tutor, patient handover, and overall consultant's attitude) was significantly better (P = 0.001) in centers providing accredited training in comparison with centers without such accreditation. Multivariable regression indicated the main factors independently associated with a better educational climate were presence of an accredited training post and total years of training. CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasizes the need for better feedback mechanisms and the importance of accreditation of centers for training in gynecological oncology to ensure training within higher quality clinical learning climates.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc15031571
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20151013100309.0
007      
ta
008      
151005s2015 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000323 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)25525769
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Piek, Jurgen $u *Comprehensive Cancer Center South Location TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands; †Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany; ‡Second Medical Faculty of the Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; §First Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Gynecologic Oncology Unit, Alexandra Hospital, Athens, Greece; ∥Gynecological Oncology Unit, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain; ¶Department of Gynecology and Gynecological Oncology, Kliniken-Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany; #Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinical Center of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia; **Oncogynecological Centre, Charles University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic; ††European Institute of Oncology and Gynecology, Milan, Italy; ‡‡Division of Surgical and Oncological Gynecology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands; §§Department of Gynaecological Oncology, St Bartholomew's Hospital, West Smithfield, London, UK; and ∥∥Department of Women's Cancer, EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
245    14
$a The work place educational climate in gynecological oncology fellowships across Europe: the impact of accreditation / $c J. Piek, M. Bossart, K. Boor, M. Halaska, D. Haidopoulos, I. Zapardiel, J. Grabowski, V. Kesic, D. Cibula, N. Colombo, R. Verheijen, R. Manchanda,
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: A good educational climate/environment in the workplace is essential for developing high-quality medical (sub)specialists. These data are lacking for gynecological oncology training. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the educational climate in gynecological oncology training throughout Europe and the factors affecting it. METHODS: A Web-based anonymous survey sent to ENYGO (European Network of Young Gynecological Oncologists) members/trainees to assess gynecological oncology training. This included sociodemographic information, details regarding training posts, and a 50-item validated Dutch Residency Educational Climate Test (D-RECT) questionnaire with 11 subscales (1-5 Likert scale) to assess the educational climate. The χ test was used for evaluating categorical variables, and the Mann-Whitney U (nonparametric) test was used for continuous variables between 2 independent groups. Cronbach α assessed the questionnaire reliability. Multivariable linear regression assessed the effect of variables on D-RECT outcome subscales. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen gynecological oncological fellows responded. The D-RECT questionnaire was extremely reliable for assessing the educational environment in gynecological oncology (subscales' Cronbach α, 0.82-0.96). Overall, trainees do not seem to receive adequate/effective constructive feedback during training. The overall educational climate (supervision, coaching/assessment, feedback, teamwork, interconsultant relationships, formal education, role of the tutor, patient handover, and overall consultant's attitude) was significantly better (P = 0.001) in centers providing accredited training in comparison with centers without such accreditation. Multivariable regression indicated the main factors independently associated with a better educational climate were presence of an accredited training post and total years of training. CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasizes the need for better feedback mechanisms and the importance of accreditation of centers for training in gynecological oncology to ensure training within higher quality clinical learning climates.
650    12
$a akreditace $7 D000068
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a kontinuální vzdělávání lékařů $7 D004502
650    12
$a stipendia $7 D005257
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a následné studie $7 D005500
650    _2
$a gynekologie $x výchova $7 D006176
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a kurzy a stáže v nemocnici $7 D007396
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lékařská onkologie $x výchova $7 D008495
650    _2
$a průzkumy a dotazníky $7 D011795
650    _2
$a studenti lékařství $x psychologie $7 D013337
650    _2
$a pracoviště $7 D017132
651    _2
$a Evropa $7 D005060
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Bossart, Michaela
700    1_
$a Boor, Klarke
700    1_
$a Halaska, Michael
700    1_
$a Haidopoulos, Dimitrios
700    1_
$a Zapardiel, Ignacio
700    1_
$a Grabowski, Jacek
700    1_
$a Kesic, Vesna
700    1_
$a Cibula, David
700    1_
$a Colombo, Nicoletta
700    1_
$a Verheijen, Rene
700    1_
$a Manchanda, Ranjit
773    0_
$w MED00009896 $t International journal of gynecological cancer official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society $x 1525-1438 $g Roč. 25, č. 1 (2015), s. 180-90
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25525769 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20151005 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20151013100458 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1092447 $s 914697
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2015 $b 25 $c 1 $d 180-90 $i 1525-1438 $m International journal of gynecological cancer $n Int J Gynecol Cancer $x MED00009896
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20151005

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace