ArticleAtencion primaria
[Training evaluation using the four courses portfolio in primary care residents of a Teaching Unit in Murcia].
Article in Atencion primaria. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the performance and quality of the 10 groups of training tasks envisaged in the portfolio training model undertaken by all residents of the Primary Care Teaching Unit in Murcia.
designA cross-sectional study was conducted on the portfolios provided and completed by all residents in May 2011.
participantsAll residents who were in training at that time (131).
methodTen groups of training tasks were established from those recommended by the National Commission for the specialty. The performance of each one in each of the portfolios was evaluated, and the compliance for each training task was calculated. The quality of the performance of each of the tasks was given a score, 0 points (very poor) to 10 points (excellent).
resultsAs regards compliance, the tasks that were most performed were: filling in the Resident book correctly and using the resident skills guide, both with 99.24%, followed by reflection reports on the training visits. All tasks had a compliance rate higher than 67%. The mean percentage of compliance was 86.49%. All tasks obtained an average score greater than 7 (outstanding). The overall mean score was 7,8 points.
conclusionsThe level of perfomance of the tasks set out in the portfolio by the residents was very satisfying. It is necessary to continue working on improving the performance of the portfolio.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.