ABSTRACT
Una especialidad médica puede definirse como un conjunto de conocimientos correspondientes a un área específica. Estos conocimientos son adquiridos por medio de estudios de posgrado luego de obtener el título de médico. El propósito de este trabajo es hacer una revisión de las diferentes opciones disponibles en nuestro país para llegar a ser médico especialista en cardiología y, así, tratar de determinar si estos diferentes caminos podrían conducir a formaciones similares y equiparables entre los profesionales. La formación debe entenderse como un proceso de largo alcance a través del cual se modelan el pensamiento y el comportamiento socioprofesional. Este proceso debe ser permanente y debería ser regulado en forma centralizada de modo que permita asegurar la equidad y la homogeneidad en la formación del especialista. Existen diferentes maneras para llegar a ser médico especialista en cardiología, muchas son combinables y todas emplean diversas herramientas de selección, formación, supervisión, evaluación y control. En conclusión, esta heterogeneidad en la forma de instruir y peritar al especialista podría devenir en diferentes niveles de profesionales formados.
A medical specialty may be defined as the body of knowledge corresponding to a specific medical field. This knowledge is provided by postgraduate training programs after completing the medical doctor degree. The goal of the present study is to review the different options available in our country to become a specialist in cardiology and, thus, determine if these diverse pathways produce equally trained cardiologists. Training should be understood as a long-term process that shapes professional thinking and social behavior. This process must be permanent and should have core regulations to ensure equal and homogenous training in the specialty. There are many ways of becoming a specialist in cardiology; most of these pathways may be combined and all of them use different tools for selecting, training, supervising, evaluating and controlling trainees. Thus, these differences in training and evaluating specialists might produce professionals with different levels of competencies.
ABSTRACT
Background In our country, training in cardiology is achieved by participating in residency programs, attending a hospital cardiology unit or taking university courses. On the basis of comments from teachers giving classes in the SAC Biennial Course about certain kind of deficit in basic areas of the specialty among cardiology residents attending the course, we decided to investigate their knowledge in cardiovascular anatomy, physiology, physical diagnosis, pharmacology and clinical cardiology after 1 or 2 years of training in Internal Medicine or Cardiology residency programs, respectively. Objective To evaluate the knowledge in basic areas in cardiology among residents attending the UBA Biennial Cardiology Course given by the Argentine Society of Cardiology. Material and Methods We conducted an observational, cross-sectional study. A questionnaire was designed with 50 multiple choice questions, divided in three subjects: Subject A, 17 questions about cardiovascular anatomy, physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology; Subject B, 15 questions about clinical cardiology, physical diagnosis and electrocardiography; and Subject C, 17 questions regarding medical practice and cardiological clinical syndromes. The questionnaire was answered by residents either initiating the course (Group 1) or who were attending the second year (Group 2). Results In the general exam, Group 1 (n=63) had a median of 29/50 right answers (58%) and Group 2 (n=57) 30/50 (60%). There were no significant differences between both groups (p=0.21). The performance in Subject A was significantly lower compared to Subjects B and C in both groups. Conclusion The level of knowledge in basic areas of cardiology among residents is considered insufficient, with greatest deficits in cardiovascular anatomy, physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology. It is necessary to revise the program of the Biennial Course and to analyze the opportunities of learning and reflection offered by the residency program.
ABSTRACT
La Sociedad Argentina de Cardiología, en los procesos de Certificación y Recertificación de Especialistas, implementa exámenes escritos de selección múltiple. Dos observadores independientes revisaron las 200 preguntas utilizadas en dos exámenes (A y B) realizados durante 2009. Se usó el Índice de Calidad de Galofré; este instrumento toma en cuenta 10 criterios que se deben considerar en la redacción de las preguntas de selección múltiple y establece una escala de 1 a 5 puntos según la cantidad de defectos de construcción que tenga la pregunta. El valor máximo de calidad posible es 5. La media aritmética de los valores de calidad de las preguntas expresa el Índice de Calidad del examen en su totalidad. Se encontró que el 30% de las preguntas tenían muy buena calidad técnica (valores de calidad 4 y 5); cerca del 40% eran preguntas aceptables (valor de calidad 3) que se deberían mejorar y el 30% eran inaceptables (valor de calidad 1 y 2). El examen A tiene un Índice de Calidad de 2,15 y el examen B, de 3,21. En ambos exámenes se encontró que los defectos más frecuentes en la redacción de las preguntas eran la falta de viñeta (caso clínico o problema) y la exploración de conocimientos sólo a nivel de memoria o recordación de datos aislados. Se concluyó que sería conveniente constituir en la Sociedad Argentina de Cardiología un grupo de trabajo permanente para revisar y mejorar las preguntas y armar un banco de ítems.
The Argentine Society of Cardiology uses multiple-choice questions for Cardiology Certification and Recertification exams. Two independent observers revised 200 questions used in two examination tests (A and B) during 2009. We used the Galofré Quality Index, which considers 10 criteria for writing multiple-choice questions and establishes a scale ranging from 1 to 5 points according to the number of construction defects the question has. The maximum value of quality is 5. Mean value of the quality of questions represents the Quality Index of the whole test. We found that 30% of the questions had a very good technical quality (quality value 4 and 5); about 40% were acceptable questions (quality value 3) that should be improved, and 30% were unacceptable (quality value 1 and 2). The Quality Index of test A was 2.15 and of test B was 3.21. The most frequent writing defects in both exams were the lack of bullet points (case report or problem) and exploring knowledge only in terms of memory or recalling isolated information. In conclusion, it would be convenient to constitute a permanent work group in the Argentine Society of Cardiology to revise and improve the questions and create a bank of items.