Evaluation of an interactive, case-based review session in teaching medical microbiology

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Oklahoma State University-Center for Health Sciences (OSU-CHS) has replaced its microbiology wet laboratory with a variety of tutorials including a case-based interactive session called Microbial Jeopardy!. The question remains whether the time spent by students and faculty in the interactive case-based tutorial is worthwhile? This study was designed to address this question by analyzing both student performance data and assessing students' perceptions regarding the tutorial.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Both quantitative and qualitative data were used in the current study. Part One of the study involved assessing student performance using archival records of seven case-based exam questions used in the 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 OSU-CHS Medical Microbiology course. Two sample t-tests for proportions were used to test for significant differences related to tutorial usage. Part Two used both quantitative and qualitative means to assess student's perceptions of the Microbial Jeopardy! session. First, a retrospective survey was administered to students who were enrolled in Medical Microbiology in 2006 or 2007. Second, responses to open-ended items from the 2008 course evaluations were reviewed for comments regarding the Microbial Jeopardy! session.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Both student performance and student perception data support continued use of the tutorials. Quantitative and qualitative data converge to suggest that students like and learn from the interactive, case-based session.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The case-based tutorial appears to improve student performance on case-based exam questions. Additionally, students perceived the tutorial as helpful in preparing for exam questions and reviewing the course material. The time commitment for use of the case-based tutorial appears to be justified.</p

The effects of integrated care: a systematic review of UK and international evidence

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems around the world have been responding to the demand for better integrated models of service delivery. However, there is a need for further clarity regarding the effects of these new models of integration, and exploration regarding whether models introduced in other care systems may achieve similar outcomes in a UK national health service context. METHODS: The study aimed to carry out a systematic review of the effects of integration or co-ordination between healthcare services, or between health and social care on service delivery outcomes including effectiveness, efficiency and quality of care. Electronic databases including MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Science and Social Science Citation Indices; and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant literature published between 2006 to March 2017. Online sources were searched for UK grey literature, and citation searching, and manual reference list screening were also carried out. Quantitative primary studies and systematic reviews, reporting actual or perceived effects on service delivery following the introduction of models of integration or co-ordination, in healthcare or health and social care settings in developed countries were eligible for inclusion. Strength of evidence for each outcome reported was analysed and synthesised using a four point comparative rating system of stronger, weaker, inconsistent or limited evidence. RESULTS: One hundred sixty seven studies were eligible for inclusion. Analysis indicated evidence of perceived improved quality of care, evidence of increased patient satisfaction, and evidence of improved access to care. Evidence was rated as either inconsistent or limited regarding all other outcomes reported, including system-wide impacts on primary care, secondary care, and health care costs. There were limited differences between outcomes reported by UK and international studies, and overall the literature had a limited consideration of effects on service users. CONCLUSIONS: Models of integrated care may enhance patient satisfaction, increase perceived quality of care, and enable access to services, although the evidence for other outcomes including service costs remains unclear. Indications of improved access may have important implications for services struggling to cope with increasing demand. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero registration number: 42016037725