Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.5116/ijme.59ba.2d47 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.5116/ijme.59ba.2d47 C5694692!5694692!29035872     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 225.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 225.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Int+J+Med+Educ 2017 ; 8 (ä): 353-74 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=29035872|t=2017. A review of antimicrobial stewardship training in medical education |pdf=|usr=}}{{29035872}} gab.com Text A review of antimicrobial stewardship training in medical education JO: Int J Med Educ http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29035872 #FOAvip Objectives: We reviewed the published literature on antimicrobial stewardship training in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education to determine which interventions have been implemented, the extent to which they have been evaluated, and to understand which are most effective. Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to December 2016. Four thousand three hundred eighty-five (4385) articles were identified and underwent title and abstract review. Only those articles that addressed antimicrobial stewardship interventions for medical trainees were included in the final review. We employed Kirkpatrick?s four levels of evaluation (reaction, learning, behaviour, results) to categorize intervention evaluations. Results: Our review included 48 articles. The types of intervention varied widely amongst studies worldwide. Didactic teaching was used heavily in all settings, while student-specific feedback was used primarily in the postgraduate setting. The high-level evaluation was sparse, with 22.9% reporting a Kirkpatrick Level 3 evaluation; seventeen reported no evaluation. All but one article reported positive results from the intervention. No articles evaluated the impact of an intervention on undergraduate trainees? prescribing behaviour after graduation. Conclusions: This study enhances our understanding of the extent of antimicrobial stewardship in the context of medical education. While our study demonstrates that medical schools are implementing antimicrobial stewardship interventions, rigorous evaluation of programs to determine whether such efforts are effective is lacking. We encourage more robust evaluation to establish effective, evidence-based approaches to training prescribers in light of the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance.  Twit Text FOAVip A review of antimicrobial stewardship training in medical education ????Int J Med Educ http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29035872 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29035872 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|29035872}}</ref> A review of antimicrobial stewardship training in medical education #MMPMID29035872 Silverberg SL; Zannella VE; Countryman D; Ayala AP; Lenton E; Friesen F; Law M Int J Med Educ 2017[]; 8 (ä): 353-74 PMID29035872show ga Objectives: We reviewed the published literature on antimicrobial stewardship training in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education to determine which interventions have been implemented, the extent to which they have been evaluated, and to understand which are most effective. Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to December 2016. Four thousand three hundred eighty-five (4385) articles were identified and underwent title and abstract review. Only those articles that addressed antimicrobial stewardship interventions for medical trainees were included in the final review. We employed Kirkpatrick?s four levels of evaluation (reaction, learning, behaviour, results) to categorize intervention evaluations. Results: Our review included 48 articles. The types of intervention varied widely amongst studies worldwide. Didactic teaching was used heavily in all settings, while student-specific feedback was used primarily in the postgraduate setting. The high-level evaluation was sparse, with 22.9% reporting a Kirkpatrick Level 3 evaluation; seventeen reported no evaluation. All but one article reported positive results from the intervention. No articles evaluated the impact of an intervention on undergraduate trainees? prescribing behaviour after graduation. Conclusions: This study enhances our understanding of the extent of antimicrobial stewardship in the context of medical education. While our study demonstrates that medical schools are implementing antimicrobial stewardship interventions, rigorous evaluation of programs to determine whether such efforts are effective is lacking. We encourage more robust evaluation to establish effective, evidence-based approaches to training prescribers in light of the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance.  äA review of antimicrobial stewardship training in medical education (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing