4. Investigation of educational achievements of medical department faculties and healthcare providers using a rating form to evaluate medical education performance / 医学教育

<p>Introduction: Compared with faculties in clinical and medical research departments, those in medical departments are not appropriately evaluated in terms of their contributions to or achievements in medical education. Therefore, the aims of this study were to investigate the contributions of medical department faculties to medical education, and to examine differences in contributions according to duty positions and specialties.</p><p>Methods: Five-grade self-assessments in relation to 20 items on a rating form for performance in medical education, which was developed by the Japan Society for Medical Education's Committee for Performance Evaluation, were carried out by medical department faculties in Japanese universities. The data were then totalized and analyzed.</p><p>Results and Discussion: Although faculties belonging to departments other than medical education units did not actively participate in examinations or the education system, they still made contributions to lectures and practice. In addition, faculties with positions with more duties tended to show greater participation in the education system.</p><p></p><p>Conclusion: Based on these findings, we recommend the use of a rating form as a standard scale to evaluate performance in medical education.</p>

2. Particularity of educational evaluation in the School of Medicine / 医学教育

<p> Recently, the roles of educators in clinical medicine have increased and diversified, such as lecturers, preceptors in clinical settings, tutors or small-group leaders or facilitators, and educational administrators. In such a situation, clinical faculties are fulfilling their missions as clinical educators, researchers, and clinicians through systematically sharing educational duties with other faculties. A system to evaluate educational achievements is needed that corresponds to the various affairs of faculties and complicated implementation system in clinical medical education. In addition, novel methods that can be used to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate educational achievements should be established as well as achievements of research and medical care.</p>

Predictive Factors for Efficacy of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND: Predictive factors for the efficacy of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors for lowering glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) remain unclear in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The aim of this study is therefore to clarify predictive factors of the efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors for lowering HbA1c after 12 months of treatment. METHODS: A total of 191 consecutive type 2 diabetic patients (male sex 55%, mean age, 68.3+/-35.8 years), who had been treated with DPP-4 inhibitors for 12 months, were enrolled in this study and evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS: After 12 months of DPP-4 inhibitor treatment, random blood glucose level, and HbA1c level, decreased from 167+/-63 to 151+/-49 mg/dL (P<0.01), and from 7.5%+/-1.3% to 6.9%+/-0.9% (P<0.01) respectively, without severe side effects. Multiple regression analysis showed that predictors of DPP-4 inhibitor treatment efficacy in lowering HbA1c level after 12 months were a decrease in HbA1c level after 3 months of treatment, a high baseline HbA1c level, a low baseline body mass index, and the absence of coronary artery disease. CONCLUSION: Most suitable candidates for treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors are diabetics who are not obese and do not have coronary artery disease. In addition, long-term efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors can be predicted by decrement of HbA1c after 3 months of treatment.