PubMed · 9400310
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
G Gilje, H Mjønerød. 1997-10-28. [Competence gap].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9400310/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Technical competence is the bedrock of surgery, yet it has only recently been viewed as a valid area for either critical evaluation or formal teaching. METHODS: This review examines the teaching of surgical skills. The core is derived from a literature search of the Medline computer database. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The impetus for surgical change has generally related to the introduction of new technology. Advances initially allowed for open operation within the main body cavities; more recently minimal access surgery has appeared. The latter was introduced in an inappropriate manner, which has led to the evolution of teaching of technical skills away from an apprenticeship-based activity towards more formal skill-based training programmes. There is now a need for a solid theoretical base for the teaching of manual skills that accommodates concepts of surgical competence.
CONTEXT: The recommendations of the General Medical Council in Tomorrow's Doctors renewed efforts to define core knowledge in undergraduate medical education. They also encouraged better use of the medical knowledge base in nurturing clinical judgement, critical thinking, and reflective practice. What then does the medical world understand by 'science', 'critical thinking' and 'competence', given the need to address both growth and uncertainty in the knowledge base and to practise evidence-based healthcare? AIM AND OBJECTIVES: This review aims to outline the role of these key concepts in preparing undergraduate medical students for professional practice. Specifically, it explores: the fallibility of the 'scientific' foundations of medical practice; the role of understanding and thinking in undergraduate medical education; the need for a broad interpretation of competence and its relationship to transferability, and the nature of clinical judgement. COMMENT: Tensions are seen to lie in the varying interpretations of clinical decision making as art or science; the varying characterizations of the nature of skilled performance in the novice, the competent and the expert practitioner, and the varying reactions to the acceptability and usefulness of 'meta-' concepts in capturing the essence of professional practice. Habitual self-conscious monitoring of mental processes may be the key to the flexible transfer and application of knowledge and skills across the contexts, characterized by uncertainty and incomplete evidence, for which doctors must be prepared.
PROBLEM: A perception that the reliability of our oral assessments of clinical competence was vitiated by lack of consistency in questioning. DESIGN: Parallel group controlled trial of a Structured Question Grid for use in clinical assessments. The Structured Question Grid required assessors to see the patient personally in advance of the student and to write down for each case the points they wished to examine. The Structured Question Grid limited assessors to two questions on each point, one designated a pass question and one at a higher level. Three basic science and three clinical reasoning issues were required, so that a total of 12 questions was allowed. SETTING: Small (70 students/year) undergraduate medical school with an integrated, problem-based curriculum. SUBJECTS: Sixty-seven students in the fourth year of a 5-year course were assessed, each seeing one patient and being examined by a pair of assessors. Assessor pairs were allocated to use the Structured Question Grid or to assess according to their usual practice. RESULTS: After the assessment but before being informed of the result the students completed a questionnaire on their experience and gave their performance a score between 0 and 100. The questions asked were based on focus group discussions with a previous student cohort, and concerned principally the perceived fairness and subjective validity of the assessment. The assessors independently completed a similar questionnaire, gave the student's performance a score between 0 and 100, and assigned an overall pass/fail grade. CONCLUSIONS: No difference was detected between students' or assessors' views of the fairness of the assessment for assessors who had used the Structured Question Grid compared to those who had not. Students whose assessors used the Structured Question Grid considered the assessment less representative of their ability. No difference was detected in the chance of students being assessed as failing or on the likelihood of a discrepancy between students' and assessors' ratings of students as passing or failing.