Cavit Işık YAVUZ, Çiğdem ÇAĞLAYAN, Nilay ETİLER, Onur HAMZAOĞLU

An evaluation of the undergraduate occupational health internship program at Kocaeli University’s Faculty of Medicine

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Kocaeli Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi’nde uygulanmakta olan endüstriyel tabanlı işyeri hekimliği staj programının öğrenci kazanımları üzerinden etkinliğinin değerlendirilmesidir. Yöntem ve gereç: Pre-post test diazynlı yarı deneysel bir porgram değerlendirme araştırması olan çalışmada, işyeri tabanlı uygulama kapsamında, Tıp Fakültesi son yılında iki ay süre ile Halk Sağlığı Anabilim Dalı’nda eğitim gören ve bu sürenin bir haft alık bölümünü bölgede faaliyet sürdüren endüstri tabanlı işyeri sağlık birimlerinde sürdüren son sınıf öğrencilerinin uygulama öncesi ve sonrası bilgi düzeyleri değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Çalışmada beş yıllık sürede eğitime katılan ve ön ve son test uygulanmış 351 öğrencinin sonuçları değerlendirilmiştir. Ön test puan ortalaması 46,7 ± 10,2, son test ortalaması ise 72,6 ± 11.1 puan olarak bulunmuştur (P = 0,001). Başarı durumu değerlendirmesine göre uygulamanın rölatif etkililiği 7.6, atfedilen etkinliği % 75,5 ve etkililik oranı % 86,8 olarak hesaplanmıştır. Sonuç: Meslek sağlık alanında hekim, hem teorik yeterliliğe sahip olmalı hem de bilgi ve becerilerini deneyimle birleştirebilmelidir. Kocaeli Tıp Fakültesi’nde yürütülen bu çalışma, mezuniyet öncesi tıp eğitiminde endüstriyel tabanlı bir uygulama olarak, öğrencilerin başarı düzeyini arttıran, mesleksel sağlık eğitimi boyutuna katkı sunan özgün bir örnek oluşturmaktadır.

Kocaeli Tıp Fakültesi’nde mezuniyet öncesi işçi sağlığı stajı uygulamasının değerlendirilmesi

Aim: To evaluate the industrial occupational health internship program being used in Kocaeli University’s Faculty of Medicine and determine its effect on student success. Materials and methods: Th is quasi-experimental program evaluation, which uses a pre- and post-test design in order to assess the success of our workplace-based program, hopes to test the standards of achievement by senior students. These students have all been trained in the Public Health Department for 2 months during their last year in the Faculty of Medicine and spent 1 week of this period in the health units of various industrial workplaces operating in the area. All students were evaluated before and after the application. Results: The results of 351 students, who have participated in the training program over the course of a 6-year period and who have taken the pre-test and post-test, have been assessed in the study. The average score for pre-test has been determined as 46.7 ± 10.2 and for post-test it has been determined as 72.6 ± 11.1 (P = 0.001). According to standards of attainment, the relative efficiency of the application evaluation has been found to be 7.6, its imputed efficiency was determined to be 75.5%, and its efficiency rate was determined to be 86.8%. Conclusion: In the field of occupational health, doctors should not only have theoretical knowledge but should also be capable of combining their skills and education with experience. This study, which is being applied at Kocaeli University’s Faculty of Medicine as an occupational health internship in undergraduate medical training, presents a unique example which increases the students’ level of achievement and contributes to the multidimensional aspect of occupational health.

PDF

___

1. Turkish Medical Associaton. Mezuniyet öncesi tıp egitimi raporu 2006 (in Turkish). Türk Tabipleri Birliği (http://www. ttb.org.tr/kutuphane/mote_2006.pdf). Accessed 10 March 2008.
2. Elliott SKF, Keeton A, Holt A. Medical students’ knowledge of sharps injuries. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2005; 60: 374-77.
3. Wynn Pa, Aw TC, Williams NR, Harrington M. Teaching of occupational medicine to undergraduates in UK schools of medicine. Occupational Medicine 2003; 53: 349-53.
4. Shanahan EM, Murray AM, Lillington T, Farmer EA. The teaching of occupational and environmental medicine to medical students in Australia and New Zealand. Occupational Medicine 2000; 50: 246-50.
5. Ribak J, Lerman Y, Froom P. Occupational health in Israel. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 1997; 70: 73-6.
6. de la Hoz R, Parker JE. Occupational and environmental medicine in the United States. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 1998; 71: 155-61.
7. Okubo T. The present state of occupational health in Japan. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 1997; 70: 148-52.
8. Boillat MA, Guillemin MP, Savolainen H. The present state and practice of occupational health in Switzerland. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 1997; 70: 361-64.
9. Netterstrom B, Grandjean P. Occupational and environmental medicine in Denmark. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 1998; 71: 3-6.
10. Werner AF. Occupational health in Argentina. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 2000; 73: 285-89.
11. Grime P, Williams S, Nicholson S. Medical students’ evaluation of a teaching session in occupational medicine: the value of a workplace visit. Occupational Medicine 2006; 56: 110-14.
12. Hege I, Radon K, Dugas M, Scharrer E, Nowak D. Web-based training in occupational medicine. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 2003; 76: 50-4.
13. Agius RM, Bagna G. Development and evaluation of the use of the Internet as an educational tool in occupational and environmental health and medicine. Occupational Medicine 1998; 48: 337-43.
14. Hamzaoglu O, Yavuz CI, Caglayan C, Erdogan MS, Etiler N. Undergraduate traning in occupational health at Kocaeli University Medical School: a Turkish experience. Industrial Health 2005; 43: 677-84.
15. Wynn PA, Williams N, Snashall D, Aw TC. Undergraduate occupational health teaching in medical schools—not enough of a good thing? (Editorial) Occupational Medicine 2003; 53: 347-48.
16. Wynn PA, Aw TC, Williams NR, Harrington M. Teaching of occupational medicine to undergraduates in UK schools of medicine. Medical Education 2002; 36: 697-701.
17. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Morgenstern H. Epidemiologic Research: Principles and Quantitative Methods. USA: Van Norstrand Reinhold Publishing; 1982.
18. Cashman C, Slovak A. The Occupational Medicine agenda: routes and standards of specialization in Occupational Medicine in Europe. Occupational Medicine 2005; 55: 308-11.
19. Buranatrevedh S. 2007. A need assessment study of occupational health curriculum for Thaimedical students. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand 2007; 90: 1894- 1907.
20. Langley RL, Sprau DD, Dolezal JM. Assessing personal occupational safety and health training for students at U.S. medical schools. Academic Medicine 1992; 67: 603-05.
21. Levy BS. The teaching of occupational health in American medical schools. Journal of Medical Education 1980; 55: 18-22.
22. Newson-Smith MS, Nicol AG. Teaching of occupational medicine to Undergraduates (Letter to the editor). Occupational Medicine 2004; 54: 134-35.
23. Goldie J. AMEE Education guide No. 29: Evaluating educational programmes. Medical Teacher 2006; 28: 210-24.
24. DSO Avrupa Cevre ve Saglik Merkezi, Avrupa’da İs Hekimligi: Kapsam ve Yeterlilikler (In Turkish, translated from: Occupational medicine in Europe: scope and competencies. WHO). Ankara, Turkey: Turkish Medical Association publishing; 2002.