Title |
Consensus development of core competencies in intensive and critical care medicine training in China
|
---|---|
Published in |
Critical Care, October 2016
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13054-016-1514-z |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Xiaoyun Hu, Xiuming Xi, Penglin Ma, Haibo Qiu, Kaijiang Yu, Yaoqing Tang, Chuanyun Qian, Qiang Fang, Yushan Wang, Xiangyou Yu, Yuan Xu, Bin Du, for the China Critical Care Clinical Trials Group (CCCCTG) and the Task Force of Core Competencies in Intensive and Critical Care Medicine Training in China |
Abstract |
The aim of this study is to develop consensus on core competencies required for postgraduate training in intensive care medicine. We used a combination of a modified Delphi method and a nominal group technique to create and modify the list of core competencies to ensure maximum consensus. Ideas were generated modified from Competency Based Training in Intensive Care Medicine in Europe collaboration (CoBaTrICE) core competencies. An online survey invited healthcare professionals, educators, and trainees to rate and comment on these competencies. The output from the online survey was edited and then reviewed by a nominal group of 13 intensive care professionals to identify each competence for importance. The resulting list was then recirculated in the nominal group for iterative rating. The online survey yielded a list of 199 competencies for nominal group reviewing. After five rounds of rating, 129 competencies entered the final set defined as core competencies. We have generated a set of core competencies using a consensus technique which can serve as an indicator for training program development. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 14% |
Canada | 1 | 14% |
Russia | 1 | 14% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
Malaysia | 1 | 14% |
Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 2 | 29% |
Members of the public | 2 | 29% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 6 | 14% |
Researcher | 6 | 14% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
Lecturer | 3 | 7% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
Other | 6 | 14% |
Unknown | 12 | 29% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 31% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 14% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
Engineering | 2 | 5% |
Other | 3 | 7% |
Unknown | 14 | 33% |