PubMed · 10238161
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J F Ryan, F A Schwarzkopf. Patient simulating device.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10238161/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Dr. Firth-Cozens begins her paper by reviewing a broad range of research related to physicians' stress, depression, and alcoholism (Firth-Cozens, 2001, Social Science and Medicine, 52, 215-222). She then argues that these psychological problems have a negative impact on patient care and describes the possible causes of these problems. Finally, she proposes a system of organizational and individual interventions to address these problems. Before accepting her conclusions and proposed system of interventions, an important issue should be considered. Is physicians' well-being an important goal in and of itself, or do we need strong evidence that physician stress, depression, and alcoholism lead to poor patient care and outcomes?
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: At the present time it seems very clear that research improvement is both an unquestionable fact and the right way to develop technological innovation, services and patents. However, such improvement and corresponding finances needs to be done under fine and rigorous evaluation process as an assessment tool under which all the research projects applying to a public or private call for proposals should be submitted to assure a coherence point according to the investment to be made. At this end, the main target of this work has been focused to analysis and study the evaluation process traditionally made by Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria (FIS) as well as to propose most adequate modifications. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A sample of 431 research projects corresponding to year 1998 proposal was analysed. The evaluation from FIS and ANEP (National Evaluation and Prospective Agency) was evaluated and scored (evaluation quality) in its main contents by 3 independent evaluators, the showed results submitted to a comparative frame between these agencies at indoor (FIS) and outdoor (FIS/ANEP) level. RESULTS: FIS evaluation had 20 commissions or areas of knowledge. The analysis indoor (FIS) clearly showed that evaluation quality was correlated to the assigned commission (F = 3.71; p < 0.001) and to the time last of the researched proposal (F = 3.42; p < 0.05) but no related to the evaluator. On the other hand, the quality of ANEP evaluation showed a correlated dependency of the three mentioned facts. In all terms, the ANEP evaluation was better than FIS for the three years time projects, but in did not show significant differences in one or two years time projects. In all cases, the evaluation with final results as negative (financing denied) showed an average quality higher than positive evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The obtained results advice about the convenience of making some changes in the evaluative structure and to review the sort of FIS technical commissions focusing an improvement of the evaluation process.