Switch to
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| lifeskim:mentions | |
| pubmed:issue |
3
|
| pubmed:dateCreated |
1989-7-11
|
| pubmed:abstractText |
The uncertain validity of written simulations could be due to the difficulty in setting criteria for optimal performance. Usually criteria are set by definition of a limited number of 'correct answers' by a panel of experts reached through an open discussion. This is an artificial situation which entails mutual influence and forces the participants to respond to the necessity to reach a consensus. In the present report we describe an attempt to set 'correct answers' by the independent performance of 15 board-certified internists on four written simulations. There was a marked variability in responses due to legitimate differences in approach, to obvious errors in interpretation of the provided data and to possible differences between the expert behaviour in a real life and in a simulated setting. We believe that the criteria for acceptable performance on written clinical simulations should be determined by independent experts, rather than by a group consensus. Students who receive after the examination a compiled list of options selected by experts in response to the same questions may obtain a more realistic insight into the complexity of clinical problem-solving.
|
| pubmed:language |
eng
|
| pubmed:journal | |
| pubmed:citationSubset |
IM
|
| pubmed:status |
MEDLINE
|
| pubmed:month |
May
|
| pubmed:issn |
0308-0110
|
| pubmed:author | |
| pubmed:issnType |
Print
|
| pubmed:volume |
23
|
| pubmed:owner |
NLM
|
| pubmed:authorsComplete |
Y
|
| pubmed:pagination |
270-5
|
| pubmed:dateRevised |
2004-11-17
|
| pubmed:meshHeading | |
| pubmed:year |
1989
|
| pubmed:articleTitle |
Variability in doctors' problem-solving as measured by open-ended written patient simulations.
|
| pubmed:affiliation |
Centre for Medical Education, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheeva, Israel.
|
| pubmed:publicationType |
Journal Article
|