著者
元日田 和規 田川 まさみ 池田 賢一 福士 政広 亀岡 淳一
出版者
公益社団法人 日本放射線技術学会
雑誌
日本放射線技術学会雑誌 (ISSN:03694305)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.68, no.8, pp.979-985, 2012-08-20 (Released:2012-08-24)
参考文献数
17

Radiological technologists (RTs) and medical technologists (MTs) are legally allowed to work as sonographers performing medical ultrasound examination. Despite the total number, much fewer RTs work as sonographers than MTs. To explore the reason, we investigated educational programs, universities, and colleges for both specialties. First, we established five categories of sonographers’ competency: 1) Anatomy for imaging diagnosis, 2) Diseases and diagnosis, 3) Imaging, 4) Structure and principle of the equipment, and 5) Evaluation of image quality, using competence reported by the International Society of Radiographers and Radiological Technologists (ISRRT) and diagnostic competency required of sonographers in Japan. Using these categories, we analyzed the content and total instruction time by lectures and seminars based on information written in the syllabi, and explored the differences in education related to sonographers’ competency in both programs. “Anatomy for imaging diagnosis” was taught in 15 RT programs (93.8%), and 6 MT programs (31.6%). “Diseases and diagnosis” was taught in 13 RT programs (86.7%), and 8 MT programs (53.3%). “Imaging” was taught in 14 RT programs (100%), and 13 MT programs (76.5%). “Structure and principle of the equipment” was taught in 12 RT programs (85.7%), and 6 MT programs (31.6%). “Evaluation of image quality” was taught in 11 RT programs (84.6%), and 3 MT programs (15.0%). The average instruction time for RT was longer than for MT programs in all categories. RTs are educated and have a foundation to be sonographers at graduation, and may have the possibility to expand their career in this field.
著者
亀岡 淳一
出版者
東北医科薬科大学
雑誌
挑戦的萌芽研究
巻号頁・発行日
2016-04-01

学会等の議論の場で日本人の質問が少ないことはしばしば指摘されるが、質問力の体系的な教育はほとんど試みられていない。そこで我々は、質問力育成のために3段階による教育手法の開発を計画した。まず、学内授業で考えついた質問を全て書き出させ提出させ、質問を考えながら聞く習慣をつけた。次に、「重要性」「独自性」「レトリック」「ミクロかマクロか」「ベネフィットの及ぶ範囲(質問者、聴衆、発表者)の5項目による質問評価表を作成し、3学会で信頼性・妥当性を確認した。最後に、希望する学生を学会に参加させ、指導医と一緒に聞かせ質問を評価させ事後ワークショップを実施した。これらの教育は質問力向上に有用と考えられた。