标准化病人联合莱斯特评估法在全科门诊教学中的应用效果

靳明伟; 樊姨君; 郭明; 白杨; 詹学斌; 李季萌

doi:10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.003773

标准化病人联合莱斯特评估法在全科门诊教学中的应用效果

doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.003773

郑州市第七人民医院全科医学科，河南郑州 450000

基金项目:

河南省医学研究教育项目 Wjlx2021426

详细信息

通讯作者:
靳明伟，E-mail：dr.jmw@163.com

中图分类号: R192
计量
- 文章访问数: 20
- HTML全文浏览量: 9
- PDF下载量: 2
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2023-09-05
- 网络出版日期: 2024-12-31

Application effect of standardized patient combined with Leicester assessment package evaluation method in general outpatient teaching

Department of General Practice, the Seventh People' s Hospital of Zhengzhou, Zhengzhou, Henan 450000, China

摘要

摘要: 目的探讨标准化病人(SP)联合莱斯特评估法(LAP)在全科门诊教学中的应用价值。方法选取郑州市第七人民医院2021—2022年参加助理全科医师规范化培训(助理全科规培)的30名学员及全科住院医师规范化培训(规培)的20名学员为研究对象，采用随机数字表法分为试验组与对照组，其中助理全科规培学员试验组A组及对照组B组各15名，规培学员试验组C组及对照组D组各10名。每位学员均进行为期3个月的全科门诊教学培训，试验组及对照组分别采用SP联合LAP及传统门诊教学进行培训。比较各组执业助理医师资格考试通过率、结业考核通过率、执业医师通过率及第1次培训与最后1次培训试验组LAP得分。结果培训后，A组执业助理医师资格考试通过率及结业考核通过率均高于B组，C组执业医师通过率高于D组，差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05)；A组助理全科学员LAP评估量表中病史采集、体格检查、解决问题、患者管理、医患关系、预防保健及病历记录7个项目得分均比第1次培训提高，差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05)；C组规培学员LAP评估量表中病史采集、解决问题、患者管理、医患关系及预防保健5个项目得分均较培训前提高，差异均有统计学意义(t=3.380、5.786、3.983、4.670、3.207，均P < 0.05)。结论 SP联合LAP评估法教学是有效、可靠的门诊教学方法，值得在全科门诊教学中进一步推广应用。
- 标准化病人 /
- 莱斯特评估法 /
- 全科门诊教学
Abstract: Objective Exploring the application value of standardized patient (SP) combined with Leicester assessment package (LAP) in general outpatient teaching. Methods Thirty students who participated in the general assistant training program at the Seventh People' s Hospital of Zhengzhou from 2021 to 2022, as well as 20 students who participated in residential training, were selected as the research subjects. They were divided into an experimental group and a control group using a random number table method. There were 15 assistant general practice trainees in the experimental group A and control group B, respectively. There were 10 resident trainees in the experimental group C and control group D, respectively. Each student received a 3-month general practice outpatient teaching training. The experimental group and control group received training using SP combined LAP evaluation method and traditional outpatient teaching, respectively. The pass rates of examination of assistant practicing doctors' qualifications, completion assessments, and practicing physicians between the two groups, and LAP scores of the first and last training in the experimental group were compared. Results After the training, the passing rate of examination of assistant practicing doctors' qualifications and completion assessment in Group A were higher than those in Group B, while the passing rate of medical practitioners in Group C was higher than that in Group D, the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05); The scores of 7 items in the LAP assessment scale for assistant general practitioners in Group A, including medical history collection, physical examination, problem-solving, patient management, doctor-patient relationship, expected care, and medical records, all improved compared to before training, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05); The scores of five items in the LAP assessment scale for group C residential trainees, including medical history collection, problem solving, patient management, doctor-patient relationship, and expected care, all improved compared to before the training, and the differences were statistically significant (t=3.380, 5.786, 3.983, 4.670, 3.207, all P < 0.05). Conclusion The combination of SP and LAP evaluation method is an effective and reliable outpatient teaching method, which is worth further promoting and applying in general outpatient teaching.
- Standardized patients /
- Leicester assessment package /
- General outpatient teaching

HTML全文

表 1 2组助理全科规培学员基线资料比较

Table 1. Comparison of baseline data between two groups of general practice assistant trainees

组别	例数	性别[人(%)]		年龄(x±s, 岁)
组别	例数	女性	男性	年龄(x±s, 岁)
对照组	15	8(53.3)	7(46.7)	24.00±1.73
试验组	15	10(66.7)	5(33.3)	25.47±1.72
t值				1.014
P值		0.710^a		0.319
注：^a为采用Fisher精确检验。

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 2组规培学员基线资料比较

Table 2. Comparison of baseline data of the two groups of standardized training trainees

组别	例数	性别[人(%)]		年龄(x±s, 岁)
组别	例数	女性	男性	年龄(x±s, 岁)
对照组	10	7(70.0)	3(30.0)	27.20±1.99
试验组	10	4(40.0)	6(60.0)	25.80±1.23
t值				1.894
P值		0.370^a		0.074
注：^a为采用Fisher精确检验。

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 A组助理全科规培学员培训前后LAP得分比较(分)

Table 3. Comparison of LAP scores before and after training in group A general practice assistant trainees

时间	人数	接诊和病史采集(x±s)	体格检查(x±s)	解决问题(x±s)	患者管理(x±s)	医患关系(x±s)	预防保健[M(P₂₅, P₇₅)]	病历记录(x±s)	总分(x±s)
第1次培训	15	13.30±2.31	6.50±0.91	14.73±1.99	13.07±2.56	7.20±1.45	8.0(7.4, 9.2)	6.73±1.03	68.03±7.47
最后1次培训	15	17.50±0.96	8.80±0.77	18.40±0.63	18.10±1.07	9.53±0.64	9.0(8.4, 9.4)	8.00±0.65	88.67±2.63
统计量		6.248^a	6.965^a	6.730^a	7.378^a	5.688^a	-2.807^b	5.551^a	10.324^a
P值		< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.005	< 0.001	< 0.001
注：^a为t值，^b为Z值。

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 C组规培学员培训前后LAP得分比较(x±s, 分)

Table 4. Comparison of LAP scores before and after training for group C trainees (x±s, score)

时间	人数	接诊和病史采集	体格检查	解决问题	患者管理	医患关系	预防保健	病历记录	总分
第1次培训	10	14.10±1.68	7.10±2.73	15.10±1.61	14.40±2.60	7.20±0.79	7.30±1.25	7.60±1.35	72.80±5.27
最后1次培训	10	16.65±1.45	8.80±1.23	17.80±1.48	17.60±1.26	9.10±0.99	8.90±0.74	8.50±0.85	87.35±3.27
t值		3.380	2.047	5.786	3.983	4.670	3.207	1.445	12.944
P值		0.008	0.071	< 0.001	0.003	0.001	0.011	0.182	< 0.001

下载: 导出CSV

表 5 A组与B组助理全科规培学员考核通过率比较[人(%)]

Table 5. Comparison of passing rates of general practice assistant trainees between the group A and the group B [person (%)]

组别	人数	助理执业医师考试		助理结业考试
组别	人数	通过	不通过	通过	不通过
A组	15	12(80.0)	3(20.0)	15(100.0)	0
B组	15	4(26.7)	11(73.3)	9(60.0)	6(40.0)
P值		0.009^a		0.017^a
注：^a为采用Fisher精确检验。

下载: 导出CSV

表 6 C组和D组规培学员执业医师通过率比较[人(%)]

Table 6. Comparison of passing rates of medical practitioners between the group C and the group D [people (%)]

组别	人数	通过	不通过
C组	10	9(90.0)	1(10.0)
D组	9	3(33.3)	6(66.7)
P值		0.020^a
注：^a为采用Fisher精确检验。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(15)

[1]	郑嘉堂, 方静, 董爱梅, 等. 全科医师规范化培训教学与考核模式的反思与建议[J]. 中华全科医师杂志, 2019, 18(7): 694-696. ZHENG J T, FANG J, DONG A M, et al. Reflection and suggestions on teaching and assessment model for standardized residency training of general practitioners[J]. Chinese Journal of General Practitioners, 2019, 18(7): 694-696.
[2]	潘龙飞, 王立明, 高彦霞, 等. 情景模拟联合多站式Mini-CEX评估法在急诊规培教学中的应用[J]. 中华急诊医学杂志, 2018, 27(6): 694-698. PAN L F, WANG L M, GAO Y X, et al. The usage of scene simulation combined with multiple-station mini-CEX evaluation for the teaching of standardized training of emergency medicine[J]. Chinese Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2018, 27(6): 694-698.
[3]	VERBORG S, CARTIER I, BERTON J, et al. Medical consultation simulations and the question of the actors: simulated or standardized patients[J]. Bull Acad Natl Med, 2015, 199(7): 1165-1172.
[4]	马文翰, 白雪霏, 黄亚芳, 等. TBL结合CBD教学在全科医学概论课程中的应用效果研究[J]. 中华医学教育探索杂志, 2021, 20(12): 1409-1412. MA W H, BAI X F, HUANG Y F, et al. Effectiveness of TBL+CBD method applied in the course teaching of Introduction to General Practice[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Education Research, 2021, 20(12): 1409-1412.
[5]	FRASER R C, MCKINLEY R K, MULHOLLAND H. Consultation competence in general practice: establishing the face validity of prioritized criteria in the Leicester assessment package[J]. Br J Gen Pract, 1994, 44(380): 109-113.
[6]	张帆, 张燕萍, 王均祎, 等. 标准化病人结合案例教学在医学生问诊培训中应用分析[J]. 中国现代医生, 2021, 59(8): 141-144. ZHANG F, ZHANG Y P, WANG J W, et al. Application analysis of standardized patient combined with case teaching in medical students'consultation training[J]. China Modern Doctor, 2021, 59(8): 141-144.
[7]	MCKINLEY R K, FRASER R C, VAN DER VLEUTEN C, et al. Formative assessment of the consultation performance of medical students in the setting of general practice using a modified version of the leicester assessment package[J]. Med Educ, 2000, 34(7): 573-579. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00490.x
[8]	陈亮, 张维维, 夏秀萍, 等. 莱斯特评估包在全科医生门诊接诊能力培训中的应用效果分析[J]. 中华全科医师杂志, 2018, 17(7): 557-559. CHEN L, ZHANG W W, XIA X P, et al. Application of Leichester assessment package in consultation skill training for general practitioners at outpatient clinic[J]. Chinese Journal of General Practitioners, 2018, 17(7): 557-559.
[9]	詹阿兰, 冯跃林. 利用标准化病人教学加强医学生敬业精神培育[J]. 中华神经外科疾病研究杂志, 2017, 16(2): 154-157. ZHAN A L, FENG Y L. Using of standardized patient teaching to strengthen the medical students ' professional ethics cultivation[J]. Chinese Journal of Neurosurgical Disease Research, 2017, 16(2): 154-157.
[10]	江孙芳, 张渊, 周容, 等. 标准化病人在全科住院医师接诊医患交流技能培训中的应用[J]. 中华全科医师杂志, 2010, 9(8): 525-528. JIANG S F, ZHANG Y, ZHOU R, et al. Application of standardized patients in training of communication skills in consultation for resident general practitioners[J]. Chinese Journal of General Practitioners, 2010, 9(8): 525-528.
[11]	胡孔旺, 汪思应, 沈涛, 等. 标准化病人在临床实践教学中的应用[J]. 安徽卫生职业技术学院学报, 2018, 17(1): 110-112. HU K W, WANG S Y, SHEN T, et al. The application of standardized patients in clinical practice teaching[J]. Journal of Anhui Health Vocational & Technical College, 2018, 17(1): 110-112.
[12]	李健, 朴慧烘, 刘莹莹, 等. 全科医生接诊能力评价工具系统综述[J]. 中华全科医学, 2021, 19(5): 841-845. doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.001931 LI J, PU H H, LIU Y Y, et al. The evaluation instruments of the general practitioner ' s ability for the patient encounter: a systemic review[J]. Chinese Journal of General Practice, 2021, 19(5): 841-845. doi: 10.16766/j.cnki.issn.1674-4152.001931
[13]	DE LUSIGNAN S, MCGOVERN A P, TAHIR M A, et al. Physician associate and general practitioner consultations: a comparative observational video study[J]. PLoS One, 2016, 11(8): e0160902. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160902.
[14]	MCMANUS I C, HARBORNE A C, HORSFALL H L, et al. Exploring UK medical school differences: the MedDifs study of selection, teaching, student and F1 perceptions, postgraduate outcomes and fitness to practise[J]. BMC Med, 2020, 18(1): 136. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-020-01572-3.
[15]	杨琳琳, 谢军, 王大明, 等. 全景式教学在全科医学临床教学中的实践[J]. 中华医学教育探索杂志, 2020, 19(7): 847-851. YANG L L, XIE J, WANG D M, et al. Application of panoramic teaching in clinical education of family practice[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Education Research, 2020, 19(7): 847-851.