Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCraig, S.
dc.contributor.authorBraitberg, G.
dc.contributor.authorNicolas, C.
dc.contributor.authorWhite, G.
dc.contributor.authorEgerton-Warburton, Diana
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-30T13:03:34Z
dc.date.available2017-01-30T13:03:34Z
dc.date.created2016-09-12T08:36:58Z
dc.date.issued2010
dc.identifier.citationCraig, S. and Braitberg, G. and Nicolas, C. and White, G. and Egerton-Warburton, D. 2010. Assessment and feedback in emergency medicine training: Views of Australasian emergency trainees. EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia. 22 (6): pp. 537-547.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/28181
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1742-6723.2010.01353.x
dc.description.abstract

The aim of the present study is to describe ACEM trainees' perspectives on assessment and feedback during their training. From May to July 2009, an anonymous Web-based survey on training and supervision in emergency medicine was conducted, addressing trainees' perceptions of mandatory assessments (primary examination, fellowship examination and mandatory trainee research requirement) and feedback at work. Qualitative data were analysed using grounded theory methodology - themes were identified by close examination of full text responses. In total, 622 trainees responded to the survey (response rate of 37%). Trainees report that general clinical supervision is adequate; however, direct supervision at the bedside and feedback could be significantly improved. They perceive that the primary examination is necessary, although they feel it is irrelevant to their development as emergency trainees and are keen for more clinically applied knowledge to be tested. They dislike mandatory trainee research, feel inadequately supported and distracted from other aspects of their training. The fellowship examination was overall thought to be fair; however, there were concerns with the time pressures and restrictions to the written component of the examination. Additionally, the structured clinical examination was popular, whereas short cases and long cases were very unpopular. ACEM trainees' views of training may help inform curriculum development, and might assist those providing education to improve local training programs. © 2010 The Authors. EMA © 2010 Australasian College for Emergency Medicine and Australasian Society for Emergency Medicine.

dc.titleAssessment and feedback in emergency medicine training: Views of Australasian emergency trainees
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.source.volume22
dcterms.source.number6
dcterms.source.startPage537
dcterms.source.endPage547
dcterms.source.issn1742-6731
dcterms.source.titleEMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia
curtin.departmentNational Drug Research Institute (NDRI)
curtin.accessStatusFulltext not available


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record