| Literature DB >> 36197173 |
Zhou-Wei Xu1,2, Na-Na Liu1, Jian-Lin Zhang1, Xue-Sheng Wu1, Jia Chen1, Jia-Wei Chang1, Bai-Cheng Ding1, Yu-Nuo Wu3, Jia-Peng Wang3, Wei-Dong Chen1, Xing-Yu Wang1.
Abstract
Explore the feasibility and effectiveness of accepting mind mapping combined with problem-based learning (PBL) teaching method in the standardized training of emergency surgery residents in the multi-disciplinary team (MDT) model of emergency trauma. Eighty-nine doctors under training who rotated in the Department of Emergency Surgery of the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from January 2021 to January 2022 were selected as the study subjects, and randomly divided into a group receiving mind mapping combined with PBL teaching and a group receiving traditional lecture-based learning teaching. Mini-clinical evaluation exercise (Mini-CEX), direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS), teaching adherence, and satisfaction assessments were completed at the time of discharge from the department. There were no significant differences between the observation and control group trainees in terms of gender, age, education, and entry grades. Both groups of doctors were better able to participate in their respective teaching modes and made significant progress. The participants in the observation group had significantly higher Mini-CEX, DOPS, and teaching satisfaction scores than the control group (P < .05). Under the MDT model of emergency trauma, the combination of mind mapping and PBL teaching can improve the comprehensive clinical ability of the trainees more than participating in the traditional lecture-based learning teaching, which is worth promoting and implementing in the clinical standardized training.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36197173 PMCID: PMC9509091 DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000030822
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) ISSN: 0025-7974 Impact factor: 1.817
Comparison of the members of the 2 groups in general information.
| Group | Number of cases | Gender | Age | Education | Entry grades | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | (yr, χ± | Bachelor | Master | Doctor | (score, χ± | ||
| Observation group | 45 | 28 | 17 | 23.91 ± 1.83 | 25 | 14 | 6 | 80.26 ± 5.48 |
| Control group | 44 | 26 | 18 | 24.52 ± 1.68 | 22 | 18 | 4 | 78.59 ± 4.61 |
| 0.096 | 1.342 | 1.080 | 0.937 | |||||
|
| .762 | .184 | .583 | .405 | ||||
Figure 1.Symptom-based mind mapping of acute trauma in the MDT model. MDT = multi-disciplinary team.
Figure 2.The integration of PBL teaching and mind mapping in the case of acute trauma. PBL = problem-based learning.
Figure 3.Comparison of the members of the 2 groups in performance before and after teaching. (A and B) The individual scores of Mini-CEX and DOPS of the control group before and after admission to the department. * P < .05, ** P < .01 VS the control group (pre-teaching). (C and D) The individual scores of Mini-CEX and DOPS of the observation group before and after admission to the department. * P < .05, ** P < .01 VS the observation group (pre-teaching). (E) The overall scores of Mini-CEX and DOPS of the 2 groups before and after admission to the department. * P < .05, ** P < .01 VS the control group (pre-teaching); ## P < .01 VS the observation group (pre-teaching). DOPS = direct observation of procedural skills, Mini-CEX = mini-clinical evaluation exercise.
Figure 4.Comparison of teaching effectiveness between the members of the 2 groups. (A and B) The individual scores of Mini-CEX and DOPS between the 2 groups before admission to the department. (C and D) The individual scores of Mini-CEX and DOPS between the 2 groups after admission to the department. (E) The overall scores of Mini-CEX and DOPS between the 2 groups after admission to the department. * P < .05, ** P < .01 VS the control group (post-teaching). DOPS = direct observation of procedural skills, Mini-CEX = mini-clinical evaluation exercise.
Comparison of the members of the 2 groups in teaching adherence (n [%]).
| Group | Number of cases | Full compliance | Basic compliance | Partial compliance | Noncompliance | Adherence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 45 | 24 | 12 | 7 | 2 | 36 (80.0%) |
| Control group | 44 | 30 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 39 (88.6%) |
|
| 1.253 | |||||
|
| .278 |
Comparison of the members of the 2 groups in teaching satisfaction.
| Group | Number of cases | Stimulating learning interest | Deepening knowledge understanding | Improving clinical thinking | Enhancing teamwork | Recognizing teaching mode | Overall satisfaction | Overall scores |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 45 | 8.53 ± 1.06 | 8.84 ± 1.13 | 8.09 ± 1.35 | 9.13 ± 1.04 | 9.02 ± 1.18 | 8.78 ± 1.41 | 52.39 ± 7.36 |
| Control group | 44 | 7.82 ± 1.29 | 8.25 ± 1.22 | 7.30 ± 0.93 | 7.61 ± 1.47 | 8.41 ± 1.02 | 7.73 ± 1.28 | 47.12 ± 6.84 |
|
| 2.875 | 2.386 | 3.231 | 5.658 | 2.625 | 3.672 | 4.014 | |
|
| .005 | .019 | .002 | <.001 | .011 | <.001 | <.001 |