Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2009
[Summarized real clinical cases use to learn clinical aptitude].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cobos-Aguilar Héctor, Pérez-Cortés Patricia, Benavides-Caballero Teresa de Jesús, Vázquez-Guerrero Arturo, Arteaga-Chávez Brenda, Cepeda-Corona Ana, Nájera-Rubio Selene, Rangel-Padilla Andrea, Peralta-Chávez Diana
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: to evaluate clinical skills indicators (CSI) with summarized real clinical cases (SRCC) by two generations of pregraduates interns.
METHODS: with a descriptive survey design 430 SRCC were elaborated according to the CSI: risk factors, clinical diagnosis, laboratory and x-ray diagnosis, commission and omission iatrogenesis procedures, therapeutics, nosology and peer critical medical actions. An evaluation scale for the clinical cases included: a relationship with the clinical experience, and the CSI selected. The final evaluation was considered as adequate or inadequate and was performed independently by three medical social service students.
RESULTS: except for family medicine, the SRCC were related to the clinical experience of the students. A 62 % of the total was considered as adequate. The CSI assessed were related to risk factors (18 %), clinical diagnosis (32 %), omission and commission iatrogenesis (9 %), laboratory and x-ray diagnosis resources (16 %), therapeutics (17 %), nosology (9 %) and a critical to peer medical actions (3 %).
CONCLUSIONS: the SRCC patients studied from different points of view by the interns included the CSI. Therefore, this action is advisable for the improvement of the patients' clinical approach.
METHODS: with a descriptive survey design 430 SRCC were elaborated according to the CSI: risk factors, clinical diagnosis, laboratory and x-ray diagnosis, commission and omission iatrogenesis procedures, therapeutics, nosology and peer critical medical actions. An evaluation scale for the clinical cases included: a relationship with the clinical experience, and the CSI selected. The final evaluation was considered as adequate or inadequate and was performed independently by three medical social service students.
RESULTS: except for family medicine, the SRCC were related to the clinical experience of the students. A 62 % of the total was considered as adequate. The CSI assessed were related to risk factors (18 %), clinical diagnosis (32 %), omission and commission iatrogenesis (9 %), laboratory and x-ray diagnosis resources (16 %), therapeutics (17 %), nosology (9 %) and a critical to peer medical actions (3 %).
CONCLUSIONS: the SRCC patients studied from different points of view by the interns included the CSI. Therefore, this action is advisable for the improvement of the patients' clinical approach.