Background Preceptorship fulfills the requirements of International Guidelines regarding the training of health care professionals as a method of teaching in clinical settings, during the daily work routine. This study aims to analyze the preceptors’ perceptions about preceptorship and their role as educators. Methods Data were collected via a questionnaire with 35 five-point Likert-type scale statements and analyzed using quantitative and qualitative approaches. The qualitative analysis consisted of two open-ended questions: (1) What is Preceptorship? And (2) What is your perception of the preceptor’s role as an educator? Results Out of 619 invited Brazilian preceptors from different health care professions, 327 (52.8%) participated in the study. Among them, 80.7% were females, 35.2% were nurses and 8.9% were physicians. Factor analysis revealed five factors: Pedagogical Competence (F1), Support and educational resources (F2), Educational program planning (F3), Teaching-service integration (F4), and Student presence in the clinical setting (F5). About F1, F3, and F5, professionals from the northeast region had a more positive perception than professionals from the southeast. The item analysis revealed that preceptors learn from the students and consider the service network co-responsible for their training. However, they agreed that only a small part of the health care team participates in the program. Participants described preceptorship as an educational task in a clinical setting, in which active learning methods are used for the training of health care professionals. Preceptorship was considered a bridge between the Unified Health System and the Academic Practice. They envisioned their educator role as a model, tutor, leader, supervisor, and mentor. Conclusion Preceptors expressed a critical view about the nature of preceptorship and their role as educators, recognizing its challenges as well as its potential in clinical settings.
Resumo Girotto, LC. Preceptores do Sistema Único de Saúde: como percebem seu papel em processos educacionais na saúde [dissertação].
Introduction: Empathy is a complex construct that can be understood as the ability to appreciate and respond to an affective experience of another person. It is one of the main competencies in health professionals training due to its relevance in professional-patient relationship. There are several assessment tools for evaluating empathy, with currently no consensus on which would be more appropriate. Objective: To identify, systematically evaluate and summarize information available in literature regarding assessment tools for evaluating empathy in health professions undergraduate students. Method: Up to April 2020 PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Lilacs, Scopus and ERIC and Cochrane Library were systematically searched to identify primary studies which aimed to assess empathy in undergraduate health professions students. Included studies were categorized according to the empathy assessment tool used. Results: Were identified 776 studies and 55 were included. The assessed population included 21,820 students, 97.58% of whom were registered on medicine course. Jefferson Scale of Empathy (72.72%) and Interpersonal Reactivity Index (18.18%) were identified as the main questionnaires used to assess empathy. Conclusion: There was an increase in the number of publications involving the assessment of empathy in the last decade. Most of the studies identified focus on undergraduate medical courses from developed countries, and the instrument most used to assess empathy was the Jefferson Scale of Empathy.
Objective: This scoping review aimed to identify, systematically evaluate, and summarize information regarding the impact of the accreditation process on medical schools around the world. Method: Up to October 2021, researchers conducted a systematic review in databases including PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Lilacs, Scopus and ERIC, Cochrane Library, Grey Literature and Open Grey to identify studies that aimed to assess the impact of the accreditation process as perceived by stakeholders from medical schools. Two independent reviewers performed the selection process and extracted data from the included studies to perform a qualitative analysis. Results: This review identified 4,280 references, and 14 studies from six countries were included for data extraction. As an impact of the accreditation process, the studies highlighted the implementation of the information management system, reorganization of the school curriculum, restructuring of internal processes and the preparation process for receiving a second visit from evaluators after receiving feedback in the first visit. Continuous Quality Improvement was mentioned in eight studies as a positive impact of accreditation. Two studies discussed negative aspects, such as the accreditation agency not being specific to medical courses, dissatisfaction with the accreditation process, high financial and human resources demands, stress and a perception of the process as a “burden” for the school. Conclusion: The accreditation process has positive aspects (stakeholder satisfaction, student performance, changes in cultural organization and continuous quality improvement) and negative aspects (costs, time and staff effort and stress). The establishment of a dialogic accreditation process that is meaningful to the school could minimize negative aspects. Thus, the role of accreditation in improving the quality of medical education and, consequently, of the health care provided, could be affirmed. It is recommended that experiences with accreditation should be shared and reported to increase improvement in the quality of medical education worldwide.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.