Medical education
-
To improve patient safety, medical students should be taught about human error and the factors influencing adverse events. The optimal evaluation of new curricula for patient safety requires tools for baseline measurement of medical students' attitudes and knowledge. ⋯ With some minor item trimming and re-allocation, the Medical Students' Patient Safety Questionnaire (Year 1) can function as an instrument with which to assess the attitudes of new medical students to patient safety and medical error. To assess the suitability of the instrument beyond the UK would require additional work.
-
Human error is a leading cause of adverse events in anaesthesia. Residents' knowledge of how to respond to rare, yet potentially life-threatening events has been shown to deteriorate over time and thus cost-effective educational interventions are indicated. Previous research has shown that test-enhanced learning has the potential to strengthen both clinical knowledge and performance. We hypothesised that critical action procedures (CAPs) tests, similar to those employed by high-performance aircraft pilots, would help improve resident knowledge about how to respond to rare and potentially catastrophic events encountered during the perioperative period. ⋯ In this longitudinal observational study of first-year anaesthesiology residents, CAPs testing helped improve knowledge about critical events. Although the study was limited by its small number of subjects, a significant attrition rate and the lack of a control group, it demonstrates a cost-effective educational intervention that improved resident knowledge. This intervention may enable residents to transfer learned skills from theoretical testing situations to real-life scenarios. We propose the use and further study of CAPs testing as a cost-effective modality to augment both simulated and actual experiential learning.
-
Comparative Study
Comparison of trait and ability measures of emotional intelligence in medical students.
Emotional intelligence (EI), the ability to perceive emotions in the self and others, and to understand, regulate and use such information in productive ways, is believed to be important in health care delivery for both recipients and providers of health care. There are two types of EI measure: ability and trait. Ability and trait measures differ in terms of both the definition of constructs and the methods of assessment. Ability measures conceive of EI as a capacity that spans the border between reason and feeling. Items on such a measure include showing a person a picture of a face and asking what emotion the pictured person is feeling; such items are scored by comparing the test-taker's response to a keyed emotion. Trait measures include a very large array of non-cognitive abilities related to success, such as self-control. Items on such measures ask individuals to rate themselves on such statements as: 'I generally know what other people are feeling.' Items are scored by giving higher scores to greater self-assessments. We compared one of each type of test with the other for evidence of reliability, convergence and overlap with personality. ⋯ Different tests that are supposed to measure EI do not measure the same thing. The ability measure was not correlated with personality, but the trait measure was correlated with personality.