Objective: The aim ofthis study was to define the core(minimum) competencies requiredof a specialist in adult intensivecare medicine (ICM). This is thesecond phase of a 3-year projectto develop an internationally acceptablecompetency-based trainingprogramme in ICM for Europe (Co-BaTrICE). Methodology: Consensustechniques (modified Delphi andnominal group) were used to enableinterested stakeholders (health careprofessionals, educators, patientsand their relatives) to identify andprioritise core competencies. Onlineand postal surveys were used togenerate ideas. A nominal group of12 clinicians met in plenary sessionto rate the importance of the competencestatements constructed fromthese suggestions. All materials werepresented online for a second roundDelphi prior to iterative editorialreview. Results: The initial surveysgenerated over 5,250 suggestionsfor competencies from 57 countries.Preliminary editing permitted us toencapsulate these suggestions within164 competence stems and 5 behaviouralthemes. For each of theseitems the nominal group selected theminimum level of expertise requiredof a safe practitioner at the end oftheir specialist training, before ratingthem for importance. Individuals andgroups from 29 countries commentedon the nominal group output; this informed the editorial review. These combined processes resulted in 102 competence statements, divided into 12 domains. Conclusion: Usingconsensus techniques we have generated core competencies which are internationally applicable but still able to accommodate local requirements.This provides the foundationupon which an international competency based training programme forintensive care medicine can be built.

Development of core competencies for an international training programme in intensive care medicine

RUBULOTTA F
2006-01-01

Abstract

Objective: The aim ofthis study was to define the core(minimum) competencies requiredof a specialist in adult intensivecare medicine (ICM). This is thesecond phase of a 3-year projectto develop an internationally acceptablecompetency-based trainingprogramme in ICM for Europe (Co-BaTrICE). Methodology: Consensustechniques (modified Delphi andnominal group) were used to enableinterested stakeholders (health careprofessionals, educators, patientsand their relatives) to identify andprioritise core competencies. Onlineand postal surveys were used togenerate ideas. A nominal group of12 clinicians met in plenary sessionto rate the importance of the competencestatements constructed fromthese suggestions. All materials werepresented online for a second roundDelphi prior to iterative editorialreview. Results: The initial surveysgenerated over 5,250 suggestionsfor competencies from 57 countries.Preliminary editing permitted us toencapsulate these suggestions within164 competence stems and 5 behaviouralthemes. For each of theseitems the nominal group selected theminimum level of expertise requiredof a safe practitioner at the end oftheir specialist training, before ratingthem for importance. Individuals andgroups from 29 countries commentedon the nominal group output; this informed the editorial review. These combined processes resulted in 102 competence statements, divided into 12 domains. Conclusion: Usingconsensus techniques we have generated core competencies which are internationally applicable but still able to accommodate local requirements.This provides the foundationupon which an international competency based training programme forintensive care medicine can be built.
2006
Education
Professional competence
Delphi
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
COBATRICE.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 254 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
254 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11769/617335
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 122
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 108
social impact