CAJ | 학술논문

目的：通过比较不同培养模式下进修医师麻醉操作技能掌情况，寻求索一种高效的进修医师培养模式。方法随机将进修医师分为两组（传统组和创新组 n=6）。传统组采用随机法培养模式，创新组采用根据气质类型不同特点因质施教的培养模式。比较两组进修医师每个月临床麻醉操作评分（百分制）。结果传统组4th~6th月麻醉操作评分与创新组（x±s）分别是71.83±5.23，77.92±0.7，84.54±7.94，81.42±2.0，88.77±5.8，96.38±1.92；两组比较 t值分别是4.19、4.51、3.55（P<0.05），传统组与创新组差异有统计学意义。传统组与创新组组间效应比较F值是34.23，（P<0.05）；两组组间效应对每月麻醉操作评分的影响有统计学意义。重复因素（每月麻醉操作评分）6个不同水平（6个月）比较F值是67.71，（P<0.05）；重复因素6不同水平之间差异有统计学意义。每月麻醉操作评分与两组（传统组与创新组）无交叉作用。结论创新组的麻醉操作评分高于传统组，因质施教的培养模式是一种高效率培养模式。
목적：통과비교불동배양모식하진수의사마취조작기능장정황，심구색일충고효적진수의사배양모식。방법수궤장진수의사분위량조（전통조화창신조 n=6）。전통조채용수궤법배양모식，창신조채용근거기질류형불동특점인질시교적배양모식。비교량조진수의사매개월림상마취조작평분（백분제）。결과전통조4th~6th월마취조작평분여창신조（x±s）분별시71.83±5.23，77.92±0.7，84.54±7.94，81.42±2.0，88.77±5.8，96.38±1.92；량조비교 t치분별시4.19、4.51、3.55（P<0.05），전통조여창신조차이유통계학의의。전통조여창신조조간효응비교F치시34.23，（P<0.05）；량조조간효응대매월마취조작평분적영향유통계학의의。중복인소（매월마취조작평분）6개불동수평（6개월）비교F치시67.71，（P<0.05）；중복인소6불동수평지간차이유통계학의의。매월마취조작평분여량조（전통조여창신조）무교차작용。결론창신조적마취조작평분고우전통조，인질시교적배양모식시일충고효솔배양모식。
Objective:To seeking a more ef ective training mode,by comparing refresher doctors'in dif erent clinical skil s training mode skil s of anesthesia operation. Methods: refresher doctors were randomly divided into two groups (traditional group and innovative group,n=6). The method of random training mode was used in Traditional group. The according to Temperament refresher doctors training mode was adopted in the innovation group. These anesthesia operative evaluatve scores (100 scores) in each group were compared. Results:These anesthesia operation evaluatve scores From the fourth month to the sixth month in traditional group and innovation group ( x±s) were 71.83±5.23,77.92±0.7,84.54±7.94,81.4±2.0,88.77±5.8,96.38±1.92,respectively. By comparing Two groups,these t value were 4.19,4.51,3.55, respectively (p<0.05). The dif erence in between the traditional and innovation group was statistical y significant.With the group's ef ect compare between tradition group and innovation group,the F value is 34.23,(p<0.05).The influence of the both groups' ef ect on monthly anesthesia operation evaluatve score was statistical y significant. Repeated factors (monthly anesthesia operation evaluatve score) had six dif erent levels (6 months). By repeated factors be compared,the F value is 67.71,(p<0.05). The dif erent from 6 levels Repeated factors between was statistical y significant.Monthly anesthesia operation evaluation and groups'interactions(tradition group and innovation group) was unrelated action. Conclusion:These refresher doctors'anesthesia operation evaluatve score in the innovation group of higher than in traditional groupe.