Scholarly Projects 2017
ABOUT THE COLLECTION
The Scholarly Project (SP) Course represents a four-year mentored research project for each student. The SP prepares students for lifelong learning and critical thinking. Through the SP, students develop advanced inquiry and problem-solving skills to support clinical practice and future research endeavors throughout their careers. The formal curriculum is embedded in this course, is referred to as the SP Learning Community (SPLC) in which all students participate. The SPLC curriculum is most intense in the first-year during which the students are exposed to issues that relate to information literacy, research methodology, ethical behavior in research, statistics and research proposal and grant writing. In addition, the students receive assistance in how to choose areas they wish to investigate, design a research hypothesis and find a mentor. By the end of the second semester of the first year each student is expected to have his/her project designed and approved and to have selected a mentor who will guide and oversee the progress of the project. Both the SPLC and the independent scholarly activity are monitored by a variety of periodic assessments to assure appropriate guidance and advancement.
More information is found here: http://medicine.arizona.edu/education/phoenix-track/scholarly-project
Knowledge Retention of the Rural Trauma Team Development Course(The University of Arizona., 2017-04-24)The Rural Trauma Team Development Course (RTTDC) is a one day course given to trauma personnel at various rural medical centers across the United States with the goal of improving care to injured patients in such areas. The purpose of this study is to determine the retention of RTTDC knowledge by those trained, as well as the migration rates of trainees out of these sites. The teaching of the RTTDC includes both pre‐test and post‐test assessments to ensure proper skills were learned. There was a statistically significant increase in score from the average course pre‐test score of 76.9% to the average course post‐test score of 92.1%. At this interim analysis, plotting the study post‐test scores over time since the course was given does reveal a pattern of decreased scores over time. The average study post‐test score of 88.8% is only slightly below the average initial post‐test score of 92.1%, though this was not significant. When assessed by individual questions, the participants scored significantly worse with questions addressing initial approach to the trauma patient and management of burn patients. There was no significant difference in scores between trauma team role. In this data set, the percentage of trainees remaining at course sites was 100%, though this was not expected based on previous studies. Our goal of 200 participants to achieve power has not been met at this time, but this could be established if more sites become involved, thus providing significant feedback for possible course revision.