Loading…

Exploration and Practice of the Integrated Teaching Method of Mind Mapping in the Standardized Training of New Pharmacists

Objective. The objective is to analyze the application effect of mind map in the standardized training of new pharmacists, providing reference information for the standardized training and teaching methods of new pharmacists. Methods. 24 new pharmacists in pharmacy were selected as experimental samp...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Computational intelligence and neuroscience 2022-07, Vol.2022, p.1-7
Main Authors: Yuan, Li, Chen, Bei, Wu, Zhaojun, He, Gefei, Huang, Juanjuan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective. The objective is to analyze the application effect of mind map in the standardized training of new pharmacists, providing reference information for the standardized training and teaching methods of new pharmacists. Methods. 24 new pharmacists in pharmacy were selected as experimental samples. The mind map integration teaching method was applied in the standardized training, which involved two parts of pharmaceutical professional knowledge theory and practical skills. The relevant theoretical knowledge of the new pharmacists was evaluated by the examination paper. Their clinical practice ability was evaluated by the expert group on-the-spot assessment score, and the final scores were calculated by two parts. Paired t-test was used to analyze the training effect of theoretical knowledge and clinical practice ability of participants before and after training. Results. All pharmacists have passed the examination. The average score of theory test was (85.8 ± 5.2), the average score of skill examination was (83.1 ± 6.0), and the total score was (84.1 ± 5.0). Before and after training, the total scores of 9 core competencies of pharmacists before and after training have significant difference (18.87 ± 4.06 and 21.40 ± 2.68, P
ISSN:1687-5265
1687-5273
DOI:10.1155/2022/7985027