Dataset Information

Development and evaluation of a pediatric hospital medicine board review course.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The American Board of Medical Specialties recognized Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) for subspecialty certification in 2016, with the first certification exam in 2019. To address the need for exam preparatory materials, we designed and evaluated a novel PHM board review course that was offered both in-person and online.

Methods

Course content was based on the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) PHM certifying exam outline. Course objectives were developed from published PHM core competencies and the 2012 ABP general pediatrics content objectives. National experts served as faculty, presenting didactic sessions, and contributing to a question bank for high-yield review. For program evaluation, we applied the Kirkpatrick Model, evaluating estimated exam pass rates (Level 4), participant learning (Level 2) via post-presentation practice questions, and participants' ratings of presenters (via five-point Likert scale) and satisfaction (Level 1).

Results

There were 112 in-person and 144 online participants with estimated pass rates of 89 and 93%, respectively. The mean correct response for the post-presentation knowledge questions was 84%. Faculty effectiveness ratings ranged from 3.81 to 4.96 (median score 4.60). Strengths included the pace of the course, question bank, and printed syllabus. Suggestions for improvement included question bank expansion, focus on "testable" points rather than general information, and challenges with long days of didactic presentations.

Conclusions

This novel PHM board review course demonstrated effectiveness. Hospitalists preferred focused "testable" information, an active learning environment, and a robust question bank. Future preparatory courses should consider including more opportunities for practice questions, focused content review, and learner engagement.

SUBMITTER: Herrmann LE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9675241 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development and evaluation of a pediatric hospital medicine board review course.

Herrmann Lisa E LE Jones Yemisi O YO Kinnear Benjamin B Rule Amy A Piper Laura L Shah Samir S SS Klein Melissa M

BMC medical education 20221119 1

<h4>Background</h4>The American Board of Medical Specialties recognized Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) for subspecialty certification in 2016, with the first certification exam in 2019. To address the need for exam preparatory materials, we designed and evaluated a novel PHM board review course that was offered both in-person and online.<h4>Methods</h4>Course content was based on the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) PHM certifying exam outline. Course objectives were developed from publishe ...[more]

PMID: 36402975

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/aimsTimely review of research protocols by institutional review boards leads to more rapid initiation of clinical trials, which is critical to expeditious translation from bench to bedside. This observational study examined the impact of a single institutional review board on time and efforts required to initiate clinical trials by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network.MethodsCollection of data from the same six main clinical sites for three current clinical trials and two past clinical trials, including time from institutional review board submission to approval, pages submitted, consent form length, number of required attachments, other regulatory requirements, order of review at central or local sites, and language in documents at individual participating sites. Results from two past clinical trials were also included.ResultsWhile time required for actual institutional review board submission's review and initial approval was reduced with use of a single institutional review board for multicenter trials (from a mean of 66.7-24.0 days), total time was increased (to a mean of 111.2 or 123.3 days). In addition to single institutional review board approval, all institutions required local approval of some components (commonly consent language and use of local language), which varied considerably. The single institutional review board relied on local institutions for adding or removing personnel, conflict of interest review, and auditing of activities.ConclusionA single institutional review board reduced time for initial review and approval of protocols and informed consents, although time for the entire process was increased, as individual institutions retained oversight of components of required regulatory review. In order to best achieve the National Institute of Health's goals for improved efficiency in initiation and conduct of multisite clinical research, greater coordination with local institutional review boards is key to streamlining and accelerating initiation of multisite clinical research.

Project description:Audience and type of curriculumThis is a refresher curriculum utilizing multiple methods of education to augment the skills of generalist healthcare providers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the identification and stabilization of pediatric respiratory emergencies. Our audience of implementation was Belizean generalist providers.Length of curriculumNine hours.IntroductionIn the pediatric population, early recognition and stabilization can improve patient outcomes. Compared with many Western systems that rely on specialists and even subspecialists, in many lower-resource settings, generalists provide most emergency medical care. The purpose of this module is to present a curriculum focused on the identification and stabilization of common pediatric respiratory emergencies for general practitioners (physicians and nurses) working in the acute care setting. Our aim is to provide a care framework and refresher training for the management of pediatric respiratory emergencies for providers who may regularly see the acutely ill pediatric patient but who may not have had recent or any extensive teaching in the management of acute pediatric airway management, bronchiolitis, pneumonia, and asthma.Educational goalsThis curriculum presents a refresher course in recognizing and stabilizing pediatric acute respiratory complaints for generalist healthcare providers practicing in LMICs. Our goal is to implement this curriculum in the small LMIC of Belize. This module focuses on common respiratory complaints, including asthma, bronchiolitis, pneumonia and acute airway management.Educational methodsThe educational strategies used in this curriculum include didactic lectures, medical simulation, small-group sessions, and a skills lab.Research methodsWe scored written pretests before and posttests after intervention and retested participants to evaluate for knowledge retention. Participants provided qualitative feedback on the module.ResultsWe taught 26 providers. Twenty-one providers completed the posttest and eight completed the retest. The mean test scores improved from 8.3 ± 2.8 in the pretest to 9.7 ± 1.3 to the posttest (mean difference = 1.4; P = 0.027). The mean test score at pretest was 8.0 ± 4.0, which increased to 9.9 ± 2.5 at retest four months later (mean difference = 1.9, P = 0.049). Fifteen (71.4%) participants found the course "extremely useful," and 28 (28.5%) participants "very useful."DiscussionThis curriculum is an effective and well-received training tool for Belizean generalist providers. Although limited by sample size and 20% attrition for the retest, there was a statistically significant improvement in test performance. We believe that our pilot in Belize shows that this type of refresher course could be useful for teaching generalist providers in LMICs to optimize care of the acutely ill pediatric patient with respiratory ailment. Evaluation of other modules in this curriculum, application of the curriculum in other locations, and measuring clinical patient outcomes will be included in future investigations.TopicsMedical simulation, rapid cycle deliberate practice (RCDP), Belize, bronchiolitis, pneumonia, asthma, airway, respiratory distress, low- and middle-income country (LMIC), collaboration, global health.

Project description:BackgroundMassive open online courses (MOOCs) have the potential to make a broader educational impact because many learners undertake these courses. Despite their reach, there is a lack of knowledge about which methods are used for evaluating these courses.ObjectiveThe aim of this review was to identify current MOOC evaluation methods to inform future study designs.MethodsWe systematically searched the following databases for studies published from January 2008 to October 2018: (1) Scopus, (2) Education Resources Information Center, (3) IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) Xplore, (4) PubMed, (5) Web of Science, (6) British Education Index, and (7) Google Scholar search engine. Two reviewers independently screened the abstracts and titles of the studies. Published studies in the English language that evaluated MOOCs were included. The study design of the evaluations, the underlying motivation for the evaluation studies, data collection, and data analysis methods were quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. The quality of the included studies was appraised using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the National Institutes of Health-National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tool for cohort observational studies and for before-after (pre-post) studies with no control group.ResultsThe initial search resulted in 3275 studies, and 33 eligible studies were included in this review. In total, 16 studies used a quantitative study design, 11 used a qualitative design, and 6 used a mixed methods study design. In all, 16 studies evaluated learner characteristics and behavior, and 20 studies evaluated learning outcomes and experiences. A total of 12 studies used 1 data source, 11 used 2 data sources, 7 used 3 data sources, 4 used 2 data sources, and 1 used 5 data sources. Overall, 3 studies used more than 3 data sources in their evaluation. In terms of the data analysis methods, quantitative methods were most prominent with descriptive and inferential statistics, which were the top 2 preferred methods. In all, 26 studies with a cross-sectional design had a low-quality assessment, whereas RCTs and quasi-experimental studies received a high-quality assessment.ConclusionsThe MOOC evaluation data collection and data analysis methods should be determined carefully on the basis of the aim of the evaluation. The MOOC evaluations are subject to bias, which could be reduced using pre-MOOC measures for comparison or by controlling for confounding variables. Future MOOC evaluations should consider using more diverse data sources and data analysis methods.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/12087.

Dataset Information

Development and evaluation of a pediatric hospital medicine board review course.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Development and evaluation of a pediatric hospital medicine board review course.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets