Dataset Information

How was the intern year?: self and clinical assessment of four cohorts, from two medical curricula.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Problem-based curricula have provoked controversy amongst educators and students regarding outcome in medical graduates, supporting the need for longitudinal evaluation of curriculum change. As part of a longitudinal evaluation program at the University of Adelaide, a mixed method approach was used to compare the graduate outcomes of two curriculum cohorts: traditional lecture-based 'old' and problem-based 'new' learning.

Methods

Graduates were asked to self-assess preparedness for hospital practice and consent to a comparative analysis of their work-place based assessments from their intern year. Comparative data were extracted from 692 work-place based assessments for 124 doctors who graduated from the University of Adelaide Medical School between 2003 and 2006.

Results

Self-assessment: Overall, graduates of the lecture-based curriculum rated the medical program significantly higher than graduates of the problem-based curriculum. However, there was no significant difference between the two curriculum cohorts with respect to their preparedness in 13 clinical skills. There were however, two areas where the cohorts rated their preparedness in the 13 broad practitioner competencies as significantly different: problem-based graduates rated themselves as better prepared in their 'awareness of legal and ethical issues' and the lecture-based graduates rated themselves better prepared in their 'understanding of disease processes'.Work-place based assessment: There were no significant differences between the two curriculum cohorts for 'Appropriate Level of Competence' and 'Overall Appraisal'. Of the 14 work-place based assessment skills assessed for competence, no significant difference was found between the cohorts.

Conclusions

The differences in the perceived preparedness for hospital practice of two curriculum cohorts do not reflect the work-place based assessments of their competence as interns. No significant difference was found between the two cohorts in relation to their knowledge and clinical skills. However results suggest a trend in 'communication with peers and colleagues in other disciplines' (?2 (3, N?=?596) =13.10, p?=?0.056) that requires further exploration. In addition we have learned that student confidence in a new curriculum may impact on their self-perception of preparedness, while not affecting their actual competence.

SUBMITTER: Laven G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4081487 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How was the intern year?: self and clinical assessment of four cohorts, from two medical curricula.

Laven Gillian G Keefe Dorothy D Duggan Paul P Tonkin Anne A

BMC medical education 20140624

<h4>Background</h4>Problem-based curricula have provoked controversy amongst educators and students regarding outcome in medical graduates, supporting the need for longitudinal evaluation of curriculum change. As part of a longitudinal evaluation program at the University of Adelaide, a mixed method approach was used to compare the graduate outcomes of two curriculum cohorts: traditional lecture-based 'old' and problem-based 'new' learning.<h4>Methods</h4>Graduates were asked to self-assess prep ...[more]

PMID: 24961171

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Australian Medical Council, which accredits Australian medical schools, recommends medical leadership graduate outcomes be taught, assessed and accredited. In Australia and New Zealand (Australasia) there is a significant research gap and no national consensus on how to educate, assess, and evaluate leadership skills in medical professional entry degree/programs. This study aims to investigate the current curricula, assessment and evaluation of medical leadership in Australasian medical degrees, with particular focus on the roles and responsibilities of medical leadership teachers, frameworks used and competencies taught, methods of delivery, and barriers to teaching leadership.MethodsA self-administered cross-sectional survey was distributed to senior academics and/or heads or Deans of Australasian medical schools. Data for closed questions and ordinal data of each Likert scale response were described via frequency analysis. Content analysis was undertaken on free text responses and coded manually.ResultsSixteen of the 22 eligible (73%) medical degrees completed the full survey and 100% of those indicate that leadership is taught in their degree. In most degrees (11, 69%) leadership is taught as a common theme integrated throughout the curricula across several subjects. There is a variety of leadership competencies taught, with strengths being communication (100%), evidence based practice (100%), critical reflective practice (94%), self-management (81%), ethical decision making (81%), critical thinking and decision making (81%). Major gaps in teaching were financial management (20%), strategic planning (31%) and workforce planning (31%). The teaching methods used to deliver medical leadership within the curricula are diverse, with many degrees providing opportunities for leadership teaching for students outside the curricula. Most degrees (10, 59%) assess the leadership education, with one-third (6, 35%) evaluating it.ConclusionsMedical leadership competencies are taught in most degrees, but key leadership competencies are not being taught and there appears to be no continuous quality improvement process for leadership education. There is much more we can do as medical educators, academics and leaders to shape professional development of academics to teach medical leadership, and to agree on required leadership skills set for our students so they can proactively shape the future of the health care system.

Project description:BackgroundFinal-year undergraduate medical students often do not feel well prepared for their start of residency training. Self-assessment of competences is important so that medical trainees can take responsibility for their learning. In this study, we investigated how final-year medical students self-assessed their competences as they neared their transition to postgraduate training. The aim was to identify areas for improvement in undergraduate training.MethodsIn the academic year 2019/2020, a national online survey was sent to final-year undergraduate medical students via their respective medical schools. The survey included ten facets of competence (FOC) most relevant for beginning residents. The participants were asked to self-assess their competence for each FOC on a 5-point Likert scale (1: strongly disagree to 5: strongly agree). We established an order of self-assessed FOC performance by means and calculated paired t-tests. Gender differences were assessed with independent t-tests.ResultsA total of 1083 students from 35 medical schools completed the questionnaire. Mean age was 27.2 ± 3.1 years and 65.8% were female. Students rated their performance highest in the FOCs 'Teamwork and collegiality' and 'Empathy and openness' (97.1 and 95.0% 'strongly agree' or 'agree', respectively) and lowest in 'Verbal communication with colleagues and supervisors' and 'Scientifically and empirically grounded method of working' (22.8 and 40.2% 'strongly disagree', 'disagree', or 'neither agree nor disagree', respectively). Women rated their performance of 'Teamwork and collegiality', 'Empathy and openness', and 'Knowing and maintaining own personal bounds and possibilities' significantly higher than men did (Cohen's d > .2), while men showed higher self-assessed performance in 'Scientifically and empirically grounded method of working' than women (Cohen's d = .38). The FOCs 'Responsibility', 'Knowing and maintaining own personal bounds and possibilities', 'Structure, work planning, and priorities', 'Coping with mistakes', and 'Scientifically and empirically grounded method of working' revealed lower self-assessed performance than the order of FOC relevance established by physicians for beginning residents.ConclusionsThe differences between the level of students' self-assessed FOC performance and physicians' ranking of FOC relevance revealed areas for improvement in undergraduate medical education related to health system sciences. Final-year students might benefit from additional or better training in management skills, professionalism, and evidence-based medicine. Surveys of self-assessed competences may be useful to monitor competence development during undergraduate training.

Project description:IntroductionPain management is a major health care challenge in terms of the significant prevalence of pain and the negative consequences of poor management. Consequently, there have been international calls to improve pain medicine education for medical students. This systematic review examines the literature on pain medicine education at medical schools internationally, with a particular interest in studies that make reference to: a defined pain medicine curriculum, specific pain medicine learning objectives, dedicated pain education modules, core pain topics, medical specialties that teach pain medicine, elective study opportunities, hours allocated to teaching pain medicine during the curriculum, the status of pain medicine in the curriculum (compulsory or optional), as well as teaching, learning, and assessment methods.MethodsA systematic review was undertaken of relevant studies on pain medicine education for medical students published between January 1987 and May 2018 using PubMed, Medline, Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and Google Scholar, and Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) data bases.ResultsFourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Evaluation of pain medicine curricula has been undertaken at 383 medical schools in Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America (USA), Canada, the United Kingdom (UK), and Europe. Pain medicine was mostly incorporated into medical courses such as anaesthesia or pharmacology, rather than presented as a dedicated pain medicine module. Ninety-six percent of medical schools in the UK and USA, and nearly 80% of medical schools in Europe had no compulsory dedicated teaching in pain medicine. On average, the median number of hours of pain content in the entire curriculum was 20 in Canada (2009), 20 in Australia and New Zealand (2018), 13 in the UK (2011), 12 in Europe (2012/2013), and 11 in the USA (2009). Neurophysiology and pharmacology pain topics were given priority by medical schools in all countries. Lectures, seminars, and case-based instruction were the teaching methods most commonly employed. When it was undertaken, medical schools mostly assessed student competency in pain medicine using written examinations rather than clinical assessments.ConclusionsThis systematic review has revealed that pain medicine education at medical schools internationally does not adequately respond to societal needs in terms of the prevalence and public health impact of inadequately managed pain.

Project description:The objective of pain medicine education is to provide medical students with opportunities to develop their knowledge, skills and professional attitudes that will lead to their becoming safe, capable, and compassionate medical practitioners who are able to meet the healthcare needs of persons in pain. This study was undertaken to identify and describe the delivery of pain medicine education at medical schools in Australia and New Zealand.All 23 medical schools in Australia and New Zealand in 2016 were included in this study. A structured curriculum audit tool was used to obtain information on pain medicine curricula including content, delivery, teaching and assessment methods.Nineteen medical schools (83%) completed the curriculum audit. Neurophysiology, clinical assessment, analgesia use and multidimensional aspects of pain medicine were covered by most medical schools. Specific learning objectives for pain medicine were not identified by 42% of medical schools. One medical school offered a dedicated pain medicine module delivered over 1 week. Pain medicine teaching was delivered at all schools by a number of different departments throughout the curriculum. Interprofessional learning (IPL) in the context of pain medicine education was not specified by any of the medical schools. The mean time allocated for pain medicine teaching over the entire medical course was just under 20 h. The objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) was used by 32% of schools to assess knowledge and skills in pain medicine. 16% of schools were unsure of whether any assessment of pain medicine education took place.This descriptive study provides important baseline information for pain medicine education at medical schools in Australia and New Zealand. Medical schools do not have well-documented or comprehensive pain curricula that are delivered and assessed using pedagogically-sound approaches considering the complexity of the topic, the prevalence and public health burden of pain.

Project description:BackgroundConsumer-oriented mobile self-diagnosis apps have been developed using undisclosed algorithms, presumably based on machine learning and other artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. The US Food and Drug Administration now discerns apps with learning AI algorithms from those with stable ones and treats the former as medical devices. To the author's knowledge, no self-diagnosis app testing has been performed in the field of ophthalmology so far.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to test apps that were previously mentioned in the scientific literature on a set of diagnoses in a deliberate time interval, comparing the results and looking for differences that hint at "nonlocked" learning algorithms.MethodsFour apps from the literature were chosen (Ada, Babylon, Buoy, and Your.MD). A set of three ophthalmology diagnoses (glaucoma, retinal tear, dry eye syndrome) representing three levels of urgency was used to simultaneously test the apps' diagnostic efficiency and treatment recommendations in this specialty. Two years was the chosen time interval between the tests (2018 and 2020). Scores were awarded by one evaluating physician using a defined scheme.ResultsTwo apps (Ada and Your.MD) received significantly higher scores than the other two. All apps either worsened in their results between 2018 and 2020 or remained unchanged at a low level. The variation in the results over time indicates "nonlocked" learning algorithms using AI technologies. None of the apps provided correct diagnoses and treatment recommendations for all three diagnoses in 2020. Two apps (Babylon and Your.MD) asked significantly fewer questions than the other two (P<.001).Conclusions"Nonlocked" algorithms are used by self-diagnosis apps. The diagnostic efficiency of the tested apps seems to worsen over time, with some apps being more capable than others. Systematic studies on a wider scale are necessary for health care providers and patients to correctly assess the safety and efficacy of such apps and for correct classification by health care regulating authorities.

Dataset Information

How was the intern year?: self and clinical assessment of four cohorts, from two medical curricula.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

How was the intern year?: self and clinical assessment of four cohorts, from two medical curricula.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets