Tue, Nov 26, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 10, Issue 26 (2017)
JMED 2017, 10(26): 83-93 |
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:
Zarezadeh Y, Moradi G, Teimouri Z, Farhadifar F, gharibi F. Quality of Morning Reports and its Related Factors at Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences in the Academic Year 2014-2015. JMED 2017; 10 (26) :83-93
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-801-en.html
URL: http://edujournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-801-en.html
Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences
Abstract: (21987 Views)
Background and Objective: Morning report is a common and valuable method (Gold Standard) in clinical education. It has some characteristics and standards that, when properly applied, will play an effective role in students’ clinical learning.
Materials and Methods: A total of 196 apprentices, interns and residents participated in this descriptive-analytical study. The data were gathered by a researcher-made questionnaire which its validity and reliability were confirmed by experts’ views and Cronbach’s alpha, respectively. Data analysis was performed by SPSS (version 20) using descriptive and inferential statistics.P≤0.05 was considered significant.
Results: The majority of participants believed the order of meetings, duration of meetings, and venues were at an average level. They also rated the seating of the teachers in the meeting and the type of diseases introduced to be at a good level. Presence of experts from other disciplines was found to be at the poorest level. 88% of students reported the overall usefulness of the morning reports to be average, and only 2% believed the morning reports’ usefulness to be appropriate, while 10 % evaluated the usefulness range as inappropriate for them. The maximum level of satisfaction was reported for infectious diseases morning report sessions.
Conclusion: In general, the quality of morning reports from the perspective of the students was average. Considering the importance of morning reports in medical education, more attention is recommended to be paid to promotion of its quality.
Materials and Methods: A total of 196 apprentices, interns and residents participated in this descriptive-analytical study. The data were gathered by a researcher-made questionnaire which its validity and reliability were confirmed by experts’ views and Cronbach’s alpha, respectively. Data analysis was performed by SPSS (version 20) using descriptive and inferential statistics.P≤0.05 was considered significant.
Results: The majority of participants believed the order of meetings, duration of meetings, and venues were at an average level. They also rated the seating of the teachers in the meeting and the type of diseases introduced to be at a good level. Presence of experts from other disciplines was found to be at the poorest level. 88% of students reported the overall usefulness of the morning reports to be average, and only 2% believed the morning reports’ usefulness to be appropriate, while 10 % evaluated the usefulness range as inappropriate for them. The maximum level of satisfaction was reported for infectious diseases morning report sessions.
Conclusion: In general, the quality of morning reports from the perspective of the students was average. Considering the importance of morning reports in medical education, more attention is recommended to be paid to promotion of its quality.
Article Type : Orginal Research |
Subject:
Education
Received: 2016/10/2 | Accepted: 2017/09/4 | Published: 2017/11/4
Received: 2016/10/2 | Accepted: 2017/09/4 | Published: 2017/11/4
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
