Volume 16, Issue 2 (Summer 2021)
jmed 2021, 16(2): 131-141 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Malekpour-Tehrani A, Moezzi M, Hosseini S S, Hosseini S M. Evaluation and Comparison of Clinical Rounds from the Perspective of Professors and Students of Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences. jmed 2021; 16 (2) :131-141
URL: http://jmed.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-1189-en.html
URL: http://jmed.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-1189-en.html
Instructor, Pediatric and Infant Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran. , hosseini_nurse@yahoo.com
Abstract: (1255 Views)
Introduction: Evaluating different fields of clinical education is necessary to improve the medical course. Among these, clinical rounds are an important part of clinical education. Therefore, achieving maximum realization in any clinical field is the goal of every medical training center.
Methods: Present descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences by census method on more than 67% of clinical medical professors and 79% of medical students who are on internship. The research instrument included a questionnaire of demographic information and a clinical round, which was prepared based on clinical standards approved by the Ministry of Health. 30 out of 44 clinical professors and 30 out of 38 interns succeeded in completing the questionnaires. The obtained data were analyzed by SPSS-16 software and tests (T-test and ANOVA).
Result: The mean scores of clinical rounds of professors were 65± 13.16 and interns were 52.47± 35.19 and in general, the situation in this field was described as higher than the average (42) for both groups. Comparison of the two groups also showed a significant difference (P = 0.00). Thus, the mean scores of clinical round scores in the professors’ group were higher than the average scores of the interns’ group.
Conclusion: The current clinical rounds situation in Shahrkord University of Medical Sciences was described as more favorable than average. Therefore, in order to further promote medical education, it is recommended that universities continuously evaluate and monitor the status of various areas of clinical education in order to reach the ideal level as soon as possible.
Methods: Present descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted at Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences by census method on more than 67% of clinical medical professors and 79% of medical students who are on internship. The research instrument included a questionnaire of demographic information and a clinical round, which was prepared based on clinical standards approved by the Ministry of Health. 30 out of 44 clinical professors and 30 out of 38 interns succeeded in completing the questionnaires. The obtained data were analyzed by SPSS-16 software and tests (T-test and ANOVA).
Result: The mean scores of clinical rounds of professors were 65± 13.16 and interns were 52.47± 35.19 and in general, the situation in this field was described as higher than the average (42) for both groups. Comparison of the two groups also showed a significant difference (P = 0.00). Thus, the mean scores of clinical round scores in the professors’ group were higher than the average scores of the interns’ group.
Conclusion: The current clinical rounds situation in Shahrkord University of Medical Sciences was described as more favorable than average. Therefore, in order to further promote medical education, it is recommended that universities continuously evaluate and monitor the status of various areas of clinical education in order to reach the ideal level as soon as possible.
Type of Study: short communication |
Subject:
Medical Education
Received: 2021/03/15 | Accepted: 2021/05/31 | Published: 2021/09/11
Received: 2021/03/15 | Accepted: 2021/05/31 | Published: 2021/09/11
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
