Identifying educationally influential specialists: issues arising from the use of "classic" criteria.
Identifying educationally influential specialists: issues arising from the use of "classic" criteria.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/chp.1340240405
复制
发表时间：
2004-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Smith, Andrew J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wright, Frances C;Ryan, David P;Smith, Andrew J
简介：有教育影响力的医生(EIP)被他们的同事认为是这样的人：(1)鼓励学习和分享他们的知识，(2)是临床专家，总是看起来很新潮，(3)平等对待他人。作为混合知识转移计划的一部分，我们的目标是确定安大略省结直肠癌(CRC)的外科医生和病理学家EIP。方法：以人群为基础的外科医生队列(n=794)和病理学家(n=449)被发送以HISS方法为模型的EIP识别调查。完成了四次正式邮寄(包括奖励)以及电话和传真。这一劳动密集型流程为结直肠癌确定了“普通”EIP和手术或病理EIP。结果：外科医生有效率为41%，病理医生有效率为42%。118个普通EIP被识别出来，结直肠癌(n=63)的手术EIP比结直肠癌(n=6)的病理EIP多得多。在安大略省的81个医疗中心中，有42个确定了EIP我们还确定了一群“领域专家”，他们的意见受到CRC的重视，但不符合Hiss EIP标准。对于外科医生(63人比154人)和病理学家(6人对154人)，这个领域专家的队列比结直肠癌的ELP队列大(6对154)。讨论：在这项人群研究中，我们使用HISS方法确定了结直肠癌的EIP，尽管外科手术的EIP比病理的EIP要多得多。与EIP相比，不符合HISS特征的领域专家对CRC的教育影响仍有待确定。
INTRODUCTION: Educationally influential physicians (EIPs) are identified by their colleagues as people who (1) encourage learning and enjoy sharing their knowledge, (2) are clinical experts and always seem up to date, and (3) treat others as equals. We aimed to identify surgical and pathologist EIPs for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Ontario as part of a blended knowledge transfer program.METHODS: A population-based cohort of surgeons (n = 794) and pathologists (n = 449) were sent surveys modeled on the Hiss method for identifying EIPs. Four formal mailings (including incentives) and telephone calls and faxes were completed. This labor-intensive process identified "general" EIPs and surgery or pathology EIPs for CRC. The characteristics of EIPs in these groups were studied.RESULTS: The response rate was 41% for surgeons and 42% for pathologists. One hundred eighteen general EIPs were identified and substantially more surgical EIPs for CRC (n = 63) than pathology EIPs for CRC (n = 6) were recognized. Forty-two of 81 medical centers in Ontario identified an EIP We also identified a cohort of "domain experts, " physicians whose opinion was valued for CRC but who did not meet the Hiss EIP criteria. This cohort of "domain experts" was larger than the cohort of ElPs for CRC for both surgeons (63 vs. 154) and pathologists (6 vs. 154).DISCUSSION: In this population study, we identified EIPs for CRC using the Hiss method, although significantly more surgical than pathology EIPs for CRC were recognized. The educational influence of domain experts who do not fulfill the Hiss characteristics compared with EIPs for CRC remains to be determined.