Juliane Kröplin1, Eike-Ulrike Zauner2, Hauke Dopp3, Anke Forberger4, Gerhard Schön5, Reinhard Bschorer1, Oliver Heese6, Jörg-Peter Ritz2. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Helios Kliniken Schwerin, Schwerin, Germany. 2. Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Helios Kliniken Schwerin, Schwerin, Germany. 3. Department of Cardiology, Helios Kliniken Schwerin, Schwerin, Germany. 4. Depatment of Nephrology, Helios Kliniken Schwerin, Schwerin, Germany. 5. Department of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 6. Department of Neurosurgery, Helios Kliniken Schwerin, Schwerin, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: As an essential part of the health care system, the requirements for specialist training are subject to a continuous process of change. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the current specialist training situation of all departments in a tertiary care hospital in Germany. Differences between assistant and chief physicians should be pointed out. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The analysis of the current training situation was carried out on the basis of an individually created questionnaire. The questionnaire content included career goal and specialism. The characteristic values initial training (IT), training structure (TS) and training content were measured on a numeric scale from 1 to 5. In addition, an overall assessment of the trainers' competences was performed. The questionnaire was sent to 208 assistant physicians (AP) and 34 chief physicians (CP). RESULTS: Totally 92 APs (44.2%) and 22 CPs (64.7%) participated. Senior physician was the most common career goal (34.1%), followed by the branch (28.6%). The importance of the topics initial training (IT) and training structure (TS) were evaluated as mean value: ITCP=1.5, ITAP=1.6; p=0.701 and TSCP=1.4, TSAP=1.5; p=0.669. The results concerning the implementation of the topics IT and TS in the daily routine show significant differences between APs and CPs (ITCP=2.0, ITAP=3.2; p=0.002; TSCP=1.9, TSAP=3.0; p<0.001). Skills lab training was acknowledged as the most important training format (CP=1.3, AP=1.5; p=0.401). The practical medical skills of the professional trainers were evaluated as high: AP: 94.6% (CP: 100.0%), as well as the training in interprofessional collaboration: AP: 79.4% (CP: 100.0%). CONCLUSION: Our data underline the importance of specialist training subjects. These are partly perceived very differently by APs and CPs. Innovative concepts for the induction phase, well-structured training curricula, providing management skills, the overall use of skills labs and digital documentation might support the satisfaction and the outcome of specialist training. This could also improve quality in patient care.
PURPOSE: As an essential part of the health care system, the requirements for specialist training are subject to a continuous process of change. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the current specialist training situation of all departments in a tertiary care hospital in Germany. Differences between assistant and chief physicians should be pointed out. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The analysis of the current training situation was carried out on the basis of an individually created questionnaire. The questionnaire content included career goal and specialism. The characteristic values initial training (IT), training structure (TS) and training content were measured on a numeric scale from 1 to 5. In addition, an overall assessment of the trainers' competences was performed. The questionnaire was sent to 208 assistant physicians (AP) and 34 chief physicians (CP). RESULTS: Totally 92 APs (44.2%) and 22 CPs (64.7%) participated. Senior physician was the most common career goal (34.1%), followed by the branch (28.6%). The importance of the topics initial training (IT) and training structure (TS) were evaluated as mean value: ITCP=1.5, ITAP=1.6; p=0.701 and TSCP=1.4, TSAP=1.5; p=0.669. The results concerning the implementation of the topics IT and TS in the daily routine show significant differences between APs and CPs (ITCP=2.0, ITAP=3.2; p=0.002; TSCP=1.9, TSAP=3.0; p<0.001). Skills lab training was acknowledged as the most important training format (CP=1.3, AP=1.5; p=0.401). The practical medical skills of the professional trainers were evaluated as high: AP: 94.6% (CP: 100.0%), as well as the training in interprofessional collaboration: AP: 79.4% (CP: 100.0%). CONCLUSION: Our data underline the importance of specialist training subjects. These are partly perceived very differently by APs and CPs. Innovative concepts for the induction phase, well-structured training curricula, providing management skills, the overall use of skills labs and digital documentation might support the satisfaction and the outcome of specialist training. This could also improve quality in patient care.
Authors: Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Lincoln Chen; Jordan Cohen; Nigel Crisp; Tim Evans; Harvey Fineberg; Julio Frenk; Patricia Garcia; Richard Horton; Yang Ke; Patrick Kelley; Barry Kistnasamy; Afaf Meleis; David Naylor; Ariel Pablos-Mendez; Srinath Reddy; Susan Scrimshaw; Jaime Sepulveda; David Serwadda; Huda Zurayk Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-04-03 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Aaron R Jensen; Cory McLaughlin; Carolyn F Wong; Katie McAuliff; Avery B Nathens; Erica Barin; Daniella Meeker; Henri R Ford; Randall S Burd; Jeffrey S Upperman Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Kristian Nikolaus Schneider; Max Masthoff; Georg Gosheger; Nikolas Schopow; Jan Christoph Theil; Bernhard Marschall; Jürgen Zehrfeld Journal: Chirurg Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 0.955