Core neurological examination items for neurology clerks: A modified Delphi study with a grass-roots approach.

Chi-Hung Liu, Li-Ling Hsu, Cheng-Ting Hsiao, Suh-Ing Hsieh, Chun-Wei Chang, Elaine Shinwei Huang, Yeu-Jhy Chang
Author Information
  1. Chi-Hung Liu: Department of Neurology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
  2. Li-Ling Hsu: Department of Nursing, Oriental Institute of Technology, New Taipei, Taiwan.
  3. Cheng-Ting Hsiao: Department of Emergency Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan, School of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
  4. Suh-Ing Hsieh: Department of Nursing, Chang Gung University of Science and Technology and Department of Nursing, Taoyuan Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
  5. Chun-Wei Chang: Department of Neurology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
  6. Elaine Shinwei Huang: Department of Neurology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
  7. Yeu-Jhy Chang: Department of Neurology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, Taoyuan, Taiwan.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With the evolution of treatments for neurological diseases, the contents of core neurological examinations (NEs) for medical students may need to be modified. We aimed to establish a consensus on the core NE items for neurology clerks and compare viewpoints between different groups of panelists.
METHODS: First, a pilot group proposed the core contents of NEs for neurology clerks. The proposed core NE items were then subject to a modified web-based Delphi process using the online software "SurveyMonkey". A total of 30 panelists from different backgrounds (tutors or learners, neurologists or non-neurologists, community hospitals or medical centers, and different academic positions) participated in the modified Delphi process. Each panelist was asked to agree or disagree on the inclusion of each item using a 9-point Likert scale and was encouraged to provide feedback. We also compared viewpoints between different groups of panelists using the Mann-Whitney U test.
RESULTS: Eighty-three items were used for the first round of the Delphi process. Of them, 18 without consensus of being a core NE item for the neurology clerks in the first round and another 14 items suggested by the panelists were further discussed in the second round. Finally, 75 items with different grades were included in the recommended NE items for neurology clerks.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide a reference regarding the core NE items for milestone development for neurology clerkships. We hope that prioritizing the NE items in this order can help medical students to learn NE more efficiently.

References

  1. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Dec 23;11:174 [PMID: 22196011]
  2. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2014 Jul;122:iii-iv [PMID: 24726892]
  3. Pract Neurol. 2007 Apr;7(2):116-23 [PMID: 17430877]
  4. BMC Med Educ. 2010 Nov 11;10:78 [PMID: 21070622]
  5. JAMA. 1992 Sep 16;268(11):1462-3 [PMID: 1512917]
  6. BMC Public Health. 2013 Aug 15;13:760 [PMID: 23947538]
  7. Eur J Neurol. 2007 Oct;14(10):1109-12 [PMID: 17880566]
  8. Neurology. 2011 Oct 4;77(14):1395-400 [PMID: 21900631]
  9. Postgrad Med J. 2014 Feb;90(1060):63-8 [PMID: 23223778]
  10. Stroke. 2017 Feb;48(2):479-481 [PMID: 28082668]
  11. Med Teach. 2006 Nov;28(7):651-3 [PMID: 17594559]
  12. BMC Med Educ. 2013 Dec 09;13:164 [PMID: 24321477]
  13. Clin Teach. 2016 Oct;13(5):348-51 [PMID: 26395465]
  14. BMC Med Educ. 2009 Jul 01;9:39 [PMID: 19570231]
  15. BMC Med Educ. 2017 Aug 22;17(1):140 [PMID: 28830418]
  16. Acad Med. 2015 Apr;90(4):395-7 [PMID: 25803411]
  17. J Rehabil Med. 2006 Jul;38(4):263-7 [PMID: 16801210]
  18. Med Teach. 2017 Jan;39(1):14-19 [PMID: 27841062]
  19. Palliat Med. 2012 Jul;26(5):744-52 [PMID: 21920987]
  20. Med Educ Online. 2016 Sep 27;21:32476 [PMID: 27680578]
  21. Neurology. 2009 Jun 9;72(23):2020-3 [PMID: 19506224]
  22. Arch Neurol. 1994 Apr;51(4):328-9 [PMID: 8155008]
  23. Ann Indian Acad Neurol. 2013 Oct;16(4):478-82 [PMID: 24339563]
  24. Neurology. 2002 Mar 26;58(6):849-52 [PMID: 11914397]
  25. Med Sci Monit. 2005 Oct;11(10):SR21-5 [PMID: 16192917]
  26. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016 Jul 18;14(1):49 [PMID: 27431911]
  27. J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Jan;21(1):101 [PMID: 16423134]
  28. PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20476 [PMID: 21694759]
  29. JAMA Neurol. 2017 Nov 1;74(11):1291-1292 [PMID: 28973109]
  30. J Hosp Infect. 2011 Sep;79(1):75-89 [PMID: 21719149]
  31. BMC Med Educ. 2008 May 30;8:33 [PMID: 18510774]
  32. Int J Med Educ. 2015 Dec 28;6:213-5 [PMID: 26708325]
  33. Rehabil Res Pract. 2016;2016:6197961 [PMID: 28025624]
  34. Acad Med. 2017 Mar;92(3):324-330 [PMID: 26959225]
  35. J Grad Med Educ. 2013 Mar;5(1):98-106 [PMID: 24404235]

MeSH Term

Consensus
Delphi Technique
Humans
Neurologic Examination
Neurology
Surveys and Questionnaires

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0itemsNEcoreneurologydifferentmodifiedclerkspanelistsDelphineurologicalmedicalprocessusingroundcontentsNEsstudentsconsensusviewpointsgroupsproposeditemprovidefirstBACKGROUND:evolutiontreatmentsdiseasesexaminationsmayneedaimedestablishcompareMETHODS:Firstpilotgroupsubjectweb-basedonlinesoftware"SurveyMonkey"total30backgroundstutorslearnersneurologistsnon-neurologistscommunityhospitalscentersacademicpositionsparticipatedpanelistaskedagreedisagreeinclusion9-pointLikertscaleencouragedfeedbackalsocomparedMann-WhitneyUtestRESULTS:Eighty-threeused18withoutanother14suggesteddiscussedsecondFinally75gradesincludedrecommendedCONCLUSIONS:findingsreferenceregardingmilestonedevelopmentclerkshipshopeprioritizingordercanhelplearnefficientlyCoreexaminationclerks:studygrass-rootsapproach

Similar Articles

Cited By