Libro blanco de las ACES Pediátricas 2024

Libro Blanco de las ACES Pediátricas 2024 550 ❚ European Curriculum Recommendations generalisability, and the balance between appli- cability and acceptability dimensions of the project, some numbers were reviewed and modi- fied. As an example, minimum exposure for the whole module of pulmonary function tests (PFTs), which was originally stated as train in a centre performing at least 50 pulmonary function tests per month, was unanimously changed to at least 80 PFTs. In some other instances, a decision was made to eliminate the number of procedures and to replace them with an overall timeframe. For example, in the pulmonary function tests module, the minimum requirement for equipment mainte- nance was changed to participate for 3 months, instead of 50 equipment maintenance, hygiene and infection control procedures. Further, regarding assessment methods, a pragmatic approach was taken. An initial list of familiar assessment methods was formulated within the Task Force. In addition, an inventory of assessment methods was done during the modified Delphi process where respondents were asked to specify assessment methods being used in their training institution for each syllabus item. During the plenary session, a shortlist of assess- ment methods was checked with the participants with the following questions. • Is it an acceptable method? • Is it an applicable method in your setting? • Is it useful in your context? • What are its strengths and limitations in your context? • Are there missing methods and notable edu- cational context that were not mentioned? The Task Force members repeated the exercise with the expanded list and with addi- tions from the modified Delphi survey results, and discussions took place in the plenary session in the final review of the curriculum rec- ommendations. clinical situations are described for all clinical modules except generic modules, for which most clinical situations may apply (table 1). Once these concepts had been clearly defined, the Task Force divided into small work- ing groups and, with electronic exchange and tel- ephone conferences, worked on the formulation of the 24 modules. In May 2009, in Munich (Ger- many), the Task Force met again to discuss and adapt the 24 draft modules. The main focus was to ensure that each module was specific, measur- able, achievable, realistic and timely. In line with the consensus-building processes used to produce the European syllabus, a modi- fied Delphi process was launched in July 2009. The main objective was to obtain feedback on the draft curriculum modules from the expert panel. Moreover, respondents were encouraged to invite other experts in PRM training to com- plete the online survey. All respondents were invited to give general feedback on each com- pleted module. Comments on the figures given for minimum clinical exposure were sought, as well as suggested exposure requirements, which they felt to be realistic and acceptable in their own settings. Finally, respondents were asked to specify assessment methods being used in their training institution for each syllabus item [4–7]. A plenary meeting with the Task Force members and national respondents was held in Vienna (Austria), in September 2009, to discuss the results of the modified Delphi round, mini- mum clinical exposure and assessment methods. Consensus was reached on minimum clinical exposure, assessment methods were validated and a free discussion ensued, giving further insights on the whole curriculum development process (fig. 4). Regarding minimum clinical exposure, sev- eral points surfaced throughout the discussion, as the Task Force had failed to reach a consen- sus on quite a few items throughout the Delphi process. As a result, and taking into account Generic Modules Mandatory Epidemiology and environmental health Yes Management and leadership Yes Teaching Yes Research Yes Communication Yes Table 1 Genericmodules Figure 4 F. Reidel at the plenary meeting.