Dataset Information

Do we need a core curriculum for medical students? A scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The General Medical Council (GMC) recommends medical schools to develop and implement curricula enabling students to achieve the required learning outcomes. UK medical schools follow the GMC's Outcomes for graduates, which are generic. GMC plans to introduce a national Medical Licensing Assessment (MLA) for the medical graduates wanting to practise medicine in the UK in 2022. With no standardised or unified undergraduate (UG) curriculum in UK, various specialties have expressed concerns about not being represented in medical schools and developed specialty-specific core curricula. The aim of this review was to identify learned bodies who have developed a core curriculum for UK medical schools and highlight the drivers, gaps and future approaches to curricular development and implementation.

Methods

A literature search was conducted using online databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, ERIC, HMIC, PubMed and CDSR), search engines and related websites (Google and Google Scholar, Department of Health, GMC and BMA) for relevant articles from 1996 to 5 March 2019 (~20 years). A methodological framework to map the key concepts of UG medical curriculum was followed. Any relevant body with a core curriculum for UK medical UGs was included.

Results

A total of 1283 articles were analysed with 31 articles included in the qualitative synthesis, comprising 26 specialties (clinical n=18, foundation subjects n=4 and professionalism related n=4). WHO, European and national (eg, Royal Colleges of UK) specialty bodies provided specific core learning outcomes for the medical graduates. Patient safety, disease burden, needs of society and inadequate preparedness of medical graduates were drivers for the development of these curricula.

Conclusions

This is the first comprehensive review of literature on UG core curricula recommending minimum standards on knowledge and skills, in alignment with GMC's Outcomes for graduates for all the UK medical students. Adopting and assessing unified standards would help reduce variability across UK medical schools for both generic and specialty-specific competencies.

SUBMITTER: Sharma M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6720253 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do we need a core curriculum for medical students? A scoping review.

Sharma Maulina M Murphy Ruth R Doody Gillian A GA

BMJ open 20190830 8

<h4>Objective</h4>The General Medical Council (GMC) recommends medical schools to develop and implement curricula enabling students to achieve the required learning outcomes. UK medical schools follow the GMC's Outcomes for graduates, which are generic. GMC plans to introduce a national Medical Licensing Assessment (MLA) for the medical graduates wanting to practise medicine in the UK in 2022. With no standardised or unified undergraduate (UG) curriculum in UK, various specialties have expressed ...[more]

PMID: 31473611

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe successful integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical practice is contingent upon physicians' comprehension of AI principles and its applications. Therefore, it is essential for medical education curricula to incorporate AI topics and concepts, providing future physicians with the foundational knowledge and skills needed. However, there is a knowledge gap in the current understanding and availability of structured AI curriculum frameworks tailored for medical education, which serve as vital guides for instructing and facilitating the learning process.ObjectiveThe overall aim of this study is to synthesize knowledge from the literature on curriculum frameworks and current educational programs that focus on the teaching and learning of AI for medical students, residents, and practicing physicians.MethodsWe followed a validated framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidance for scoping reviews. An information specialist performed a comprehensive search from 2000 to May 2023 in the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and Scopus as well as the gray literature. Papers were limited to English and French languages. This review included papers that describe curriculum frameworks for teaching and learning AI in medicine, irrespective of country. All types of papers and study designs were included, except conference abstracts and protocols. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts, read the full texts, and extracted data using a validated data extraction form. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, and if this was not possible, the opinion of a third reviewer was sought. We adhered to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist for reporting the results.ResultsOf the 5104 papers screened, 21 papers relevant to our eligibility criteria were identified. In total, 90% (19/21) of the papers altogether described 30 current or previously offered educational programs, and 10% (2/21) of the papers described elements of a curriculum framework. One framework describes a general approach to integrating AI curricula throughout the medical learning continuum and another describes a core curriculum for AI in ophthalmology. No papers described a theory, pedagogy, or framework that guided the educational programs.ConclusionsThis review synthesizes recent advancements in AI curriculum frameworks and educational programs within the domain of medical education. To build on this foundation, future researchers are encouraged to engage in a multidisciplinary approach to curriculum redesign. In addition, it is encouraged to initiate dialogues on the integration of AI into medical curriculum planning and to investigate the development, deployment, and appraisal of these innovative educational programs.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.11124/JBIES-22-00374.

Project description:BackgroundMedical schools worldwide are accelerating the introduction of digital health courses into their curricula. The COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to this swift and widespread transition to digital health and education. However, the need for digital health competencies goes beyond the COVID-19 pandemic because they are becoming essential for the delivery of effective, efficient, and safe care.ObjectiveThis review aims to collate and analyze studies evaluating digital health education for medical students to inform the development of future courses and identify areas where curricula may need to be strengthened.MethodsWe carried out a scoping review by following the guidance of the Joanna Briggs Institute, and the results were reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. We searched 6 major bibliographic databases and gray literature sources for articles published between January 2000 and November 2019. Two authors independently screened the retrieved citations and extracted the data from the included studies. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus discussions between the authors. The findings were analyzed using thematic analysis and presented narratively.ResultsA total of 34 studies focusing on different digital courses were included in this review. Most of the studies (22/34, 65%) were published between 2010 and 2019 and originated in the United States (20/34, 59%). The reported digital health courses were mostly elective (20/34, 59%), were integrated into the existing curriculum (24/34, 71%), and focused mainly on medical informatics (17/34, 50%). Most of the courses targeted medical students from the first to third year (17/34, 50%), and the duration of the courses ranged from 1 hour to 3 academic years. Most of the studies (22/34, 65%) reported the use of blended education. A few of the studies (6/34, 18%) delivered courses entirely digitally by using online modules, offline learning, massive open online courses, and virtual patient simulations. The reported courses used various assessment approaches such as paper-based assessments, in-person observations, and online assessments. Most of the studies (30/34, 88%) evaluated courses mostly by using an uncontrolled before-and-after design and generally reported improvements in students' learning outcomes.ConclusionsDigital health courses reported in literature are mostly elective, focus on a single area of digital health, and lack robust evaluation. They have diverse delivery, development, and assessment approaches. There is an urgent need for high-quality studies that evaluate digital health education.

Project description:BackgroundCharacterised by feelings of helplessness in the face of clinical, organization and societal demands, medical students are especially prone to moral distress (MD). Despite risks of disillusionment and burnout, efforts to support them have been limited by a dearth of data and understanding of MD in medical students. Yet, new data on how healthcare professionals confront difficult care situations suggest that MD could be better understood through the lens of the Ring Theory of Personhood (RToP). A systematic scoping review (SSR) guided by the RToP is proposed to evaluate the present understanding of MD amongst medical students.MethodsThe Systematic Evidence-Based Approach (SEBA) is adopted to map prevailing accounts of MD in medical students. To enhance the transparency and reproducibility, the SEBA methodology employs a structured search approach, concurrent and independent thematic analysis and directed content analysis (Split Approach), the Jigsaw Perspective that combines complementary themes and categories, and the Funnelling Process that compares the results of the Jigsaw Perspective with tabulated summaries to ensure the accountability of these findings. The domains created guide the discussion.ResultsTwo thousand six hundred seventy-one abstracts were identified from eight databases, 316 articles were reviewed, and 20 articles were included. The four domains identified include definitions, sources, recognition and, interventions for MD.ConclusionsMD in medical students may be explained as conflicts between the values, duties, and principles contained within the different aspects of their identity. These conflicts which are characterised as disharmony (within) and dyssynchrony (between) the rings of RToP underline the need for personalised and longitudinal evaluations and support of medical students throughout their training. This longitudinal oversight and support should be supported by the host organization that must also ensure access to trained faculty, a nurturing and safe environment for medical students to facilitate speak-up culture, anonymous reporting, feedback opportunities and supplementing positive role modelling and mentoring within the training program.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a growing acknowledgement that doctors need to develop leadership and management competences to become more actively involved in the planning, delivery and transformation of patient services. We undertook a systematic review of what is known concerning the knowledge, skills and attitudes of medical students regarding leadership and management. Here we report the results pertaining to the attitudes of students to provide evidence to inform curriculum development in this developing field of medical education.MethodsWe searched major electronic databases and citation indexes within the disciplines of medicine, education, social science and management. We undertook hand searching of major journals, and reference and citation tracking. We accessed websites of UK medical institutions and contacted individuals working within the field.Results26 studies were included. Most were conducted in the USA, using mainly quantitative methods. We used inductive analysis of the topics addressed by each study to identity five main content areas: Quality Improvement; Managed Care, Use of Resources and Costs; General Leadership and Management; Role of the Doctor, and Patient Safety. Students have positive attitudes to clinical practice guidelines, quality improvement techniques and multidisciplinary teamwork, but mixed attitudes to managed care, cost containment and medical error. Education interventions had variable effects on students' attitudes. Medical students perceive a need for leadership and management education but identified lack of curriculum time and disinterest in some activities as potential barriers to implementation.ConclusionsThe findings from our review may reflect the relatively little emphasis given to leadership and management in medical curricula. However, students recognise a need to develop leadership and management competences. Although further work needs to be undertaken, using rigorous methods, to identify the most effective and cost-effective curriculum innovations, this review offers the only currently available summary of work examining the attitudes of students to this important area of development for future doctors.

Dataset Information

Do we need a core curriculum for medical students? A scoping review.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Do we need a core curriculum for medical students? A scoping review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets