Exploration and practice of opening selective course of basic clinical skill / 中华医学教育探索杂志

Objective To explore an effective method for enhancing basic clinical skill of students.Methods Selective course of basic clinical skill was launched for the fourth grade clinical medicine students by using simulation-based medical education (SBME).Elective courses have 21 class hours,involving 15 items of basic clinical skills in internal medicine,surgery and nursing.Training methods include preparation,explanation,demonstration,operation,group competition,examination and questionnaire.Selective course examination includes class activation and final examination,accounting for 20％ and 80％ of the final scores,respectively.Scores were classified into A (excellent),B (good) and C (moderate) levels.Scores and questionnaire data were processed by Microsoft Office Excel 2007 software and percentages of score and questionnaire feedback were calculated.Results Results suggested that the scores of 70％ students were more than 90.Results of questionnaire indicated that the basic clinical skills of 76.6％ of the students were improved a lot.79.2％ considered that it was useful for their clinical practices.Conclusion Clinical-skill course based on SBME is conducive to enhancing basic clinical skills of students.

Practice and thinking of assessment scale design for simulated clinical skills examination / 中华医学教育探索杂志

This article described systematically the design basis,passing standard and influential factor of test score of the assessment scale of simulated clinical skills examination.Through developing and modifying OSCE examination scale design for many years,we have found that the use of 360-degree assessment for designing OSCE assessment rating scale can effectively reduce the impact on the score of examinee owing to the environment,the candidates,raters and question design,which has an important role for scientific development of OSCE assessment scales,as well as improving the reliability and validity for development of a scientific OSCE assessment.

Open-label and non-randomized study of therapeutic effect of amantadine monotherapy and concomitant amantadine with salvia miltiorrhiza compound or selegiline on early Parkinson's disease / 中国康复理论与实践

@# Objective To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of amantadine monotherapy and concomitant amantadine with salvia miltiorrhiza compound or selegiline of the treatment of Parkinson's disease.Methods The clinical trial was performed in the multicenter, open label study. Amantadine group: 35 cases, amantadine plus salvia miltiorrhiza compound group: 34 cases and amantadine plus selegiline group: 29 cases. The clinical efficacy had been assessed with modified Webster scale (WR) and motor dysfunction rating scale for Parkinson's disease (MDRSPD) with interval of two months for one year. The safety data included blood glucose, hepatic and renal function tests, blood and urine routine tests.Results The clinical improved rates were 42.9% (WR) and 37.1% (MDRSPD) in amantadine group, respectively. The clinical score was improved in 34.2% (WR) and 26.5% (MDRSPD) in amantadine plus salvia miltiorrhiza compound group, respectively. The clinical improvement was 51.1% (WR)and 48.3% (MDRSPD) in amantadine plus selegiline group, respectively. There were no significant differences among these three groups (t-test,P>0.05). The clinical marked efficacy rates in assessment of MDRSPD were 2.8% in amantadine group, 11.8% in amantadine plus salvia miltiorrhiza compound group and 27.6% in amantadine plus selegiline group, respectively. There was significant difference between amantadine group and amantadine plus selegiline group, but no significant difference between amantadine group and amantadine plus salvia miltiorrhiza compound group. The adverse event rates were 27.8% in amantadine group, 8.8% in amantadine plus salvia miltiorrhiza compound group and 31.0% in amantadine plus selegiline group, respectively. All these events were mild, of short duration and resolved without treatment. Conclusion There was some efficacy rate in all three groups. Comparing with amantadine group, there was higher marked efficacy rate in amantadine plus selegiline group.