scholarly journals Vision 95: A Teacher Improvement Program Gets Bigger And Better

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rick L. Homkes ◽  
Kevin D. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Teacher Improvement ◽  
Improvement Program

scholarly journals The Development of Effective English Teacher Improvement Program Based on a Case Study of English Teaching in Madrasah in Indonesia

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Siti Nurul Azkiyah
Keyword(s):  
Dynamic Model ◽  
Time Management ◽  
Student Outcomes ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Teacher Improvement ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Teacher Instruction ◽  
Teaching Of Reading ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Reading Activities

Teachers play very important roles, yet not all teachers can teach well and hence it is important to develop a teacher improvement program. Therefore, this study observed teaching and learning process to understand current teacher instruction so that priorities could be easily set up. 11 English teachers participated in the study. The eight classroom factors of the dynamic model (Orientation, Structuring, Modeling, Application, Questioning, Assessment, Building Classroom as a Learning Environment, and Time Management) are used as the framework since they are theory-driven and have been empirically proven to lead to better student outcomes. The data on the teaching of reading were descriptively analyzed, the results of which show almost no teachers did orientation and structuring, which could serve as pre-reading activities. Modeling was not really provided and students were left not to have sufficient tasks, hence during reading activities were not well delivered. Questioning was practiced by teachers but was limited to “product” questions. Lastly, collaboration and competition among students were not really promoted. The findings of this study suggest that all eight factors should be trained to teachers. It is expected that when teachers practice those factors, student outcomes will be better. Keywords: teacher instruction, the dynamic model, teacher improvement program

Residency Training and Hand Surgery Practice Patterns: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
James J. Drinane ◽  
Brian Drolet ◽  
Ashit Patel ◽  
Joseph A. Ricci
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Residency Training ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
Hand Surgery ◽  
Soft Tissue Coverage ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Surgical Quality ◽  
Orthopedic Surgeons ◽  
Procedural Volume ◽  
General Surgeons

Abstract Introduction Fellowship-trained hand surgeons may have residency training in either orthopedic, plastic, or general surgery, generating significant variability in education background. To study the effect of different training backgrounds on practice pattern variations, we utilized the NSQIP (National Surgical Quality Improvement Database) database to assess hand surgery volumes and case variety by specialty. Materials and Methods NSQIP years 2008 to 2017 was queried with hand surgery current procedural terminology codes defined by the American Board of Orthopedic Surgery. Procedures were grouped according to type and specialty, and relative rates calculated. Hand society membership data were used to determine if procedural volume for each specialty in each category and overall contribution to the volume of hand surgery performed nationally was distributed in accordance with membership data. Results A total of 145,015 hand surgeries were performed; 13,267 (9.1%) by general surgeons, 28,402 (19.6%) by plastic surgeons, and 103,346 (71.3%) by orthopedic surgeons. Orthopedic surgeons performed significantly more bone, fracture, joint, and tendon cases. General surgeons and plastic surgeons performed higher than expected numbers of soft tissue coverage and cases overall with respective excesses of 183 and 22%. Conclusion Hand surgery is an available fellowship pathway from multiple residencies. Fellowship training does not level the field of real-world practice patterns. Residency training experiences significantly impact practice.

Upper Extremity Free Flap Transfers: An Analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
George A. Beyer ◽  
Karan Dua ◽  
Neil V. Shah ◽  
Joseph P. Scollan ◽  
Jared M. Newman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Free Flap ◽  
Quality Improvement Program ◽  
Readmission Rates ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Surgical Quality ◽  
Flap Transfer ◽  
Free Flap Transfer ◽  
Reoperation Rates

Abstract Introduction We evaluated the demographics, flap types, and 30-day complication, readmission, and reoperation rates for upper extremity free flap transfers within the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Materials and Methods Upper extremity free flap transfer patients in the NSQIP from 2008 to 2016 were identified. Complications, reoperations, and readmissions were queried. Chi-squared tests evaluated differences in sex, race, and insurance. The types of procedures performed, complication frequencies, reoperation rates, and readmission rates were analyzed. Results One-hundred-eleven patients were selected (mean: 36.8 years). Most common upper extremity free flaps were muscle/myocutaneous (45.9%) and other vascularized bone grafts with microanastomosis (27.9%). Thirty-day complications among all patients included superficial site infections (2.7%), intraoperative transfusions (7.2%), pneumonia (0.9%), and deep venous thrombosis (0.9%). Thirty-day reoperation and readmission rates were 4.5% and 3.6%, respectively. The mean time from discharge to readmission was 12.5 days. Conclusion Upper extremity free flap transfers could be performed with a low rate of 30-day complications, reoperations, and readmissions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document