Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası, cilt.19, sa.58, ss.128-143, 2020 (Hakemli Dergi)
Background: Proper clinical use of blood and blood products requires competent theoretical and practical knowledge of transfusion medicine. The Curriculum Development and Standard Determination System Medical Specialization Board is prepared Hematology Specialist Education Core Curriculum in Turkey. In this study, we aimed to determine the access of hematologists to the learning objectives defined by curriculum for the transfusion medicine and the factors affecting it.
Methods: Hematologists who have been members of Turkish Hematology Society since 2013 have been included in the study, The survey questions were prepared based on the curriculum for transfusion medicine. The study was applied to hematologists with “survey monkey” application. The questionnaire consisted of a competence self-assessment with Likert scale and theoretical multiple-choice knowledge questions.
Results: Of the 213 hematologists, 54 (25%) were included in the study. Hematologists rated their competences in the clinical competence areas as 3,65 ± 0,73 (median 3,60) as “I know but not t a sufficient level”. The participants ‘perception of competence was “I know, but not at a sufficient level’” with an average of 3.31 ± 0.84 (median3.5) in the blood banking field, while the average in hemapheresis and transfusion medicine was 4.04 ± 0.63 (median 4) as “enough”. In interventional procedures, hematologists stated that their vocational competences were 2,79± 0,92 (median 2,93) on average as “I have an idea- I know, but not enough”. The correct answer to 13 theoretical questions was an average of 6,96 ± 1,89 (median 7). Hematologists performing blood rotation felt significantly more competent than the physicians who could not do the rotation in the blood bank, blood banking t(52) = -3.9, p < .001 , transfusion medicine and interventional competence t(52) = -2.2, p = .04 . Physicians who believed that they are sufficient in the blood banking area, were more confident in transfusion medicine r(54) = .67, p <.001 and managing interventional procedures r(54) = .85, p <.001.
Conclusion: In this study, hematologists generally felt more competent in subjects such as transfusion and therapeutic apheresis, which they often think of as not having enougknowledge in the area of blood banking. Hematologists have been more confident in the field of transfusion medicine as their years of expertise increased, but they did not feel better equipped in the fields of blood banking and interventional competence. The current results suggested that hematologists who are expected to be the blood bank supervisors do not internalize the area of blood banking, are not strong in their competence, and do not want to work in this area unless they are required. In hematology education curriculum, positive revisions in education can be achieved by revising blood banking curriculum and learning objectives, standardizing blood center rotations with content and duration, and support from online distance education programs.