Involving people with dementia and their carers in dementia education for undergraduate healthcare professionals: a qualitative study of motivation to participate and experience

BACKGROUND:There is a need to improve dementia education to prepare future generations of healthcare professionals to deal with the increasing challenges they will face. Time for Dementia is an innovative undergraduate education program for medical, nursing, and paramedic students in the south of England. Success of the program is dependent upon the participation of families (people with dementia and their carers). This qualitative study seeks to explore the motivation and experiences of the families taking part in the program. METHODS: A topic guide was developed to understand factors influencing motivation and retention. A purposeful sample of participant families, who had at least 12 months of involvement in the program, were selected from a cohort of 282 families and were invited to take part in an in-depth qualitative interview. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis. This was subsequently refined in an on-going process of analysis aided by the use of Nvivo 11. Interviewing stopped when thematic saturation was reached. RESULTS: Eighteen families took part in an in-depth qualitative interviews. Four themes were identified from the analysis. These themes were motivators, value to family, value to the person with dementia, and student factors. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies underpinning factors that motivate families to join dementia education programs and the impact of such programs upon them. We found that engagement in such programs can have therapeutic benefits to participants, and do not cause harm. These findings can be used to strengthen recruitment and enhance family involvement in similar programs

Exploring UK medical school differences: the MedDifs study of selection, teaching, student and F1 perceptions, postgraduate outcomes and fitness to practise.

BACKGROUND: Medical schools differ, particularly in their teaching, but it is unclear whether such differences matter, although influential claims are often made. The Medical School Differences (MedDifs) study brings together a wide range of measures of UK medical schools, including postgraduate performance, fitness to practise issues, specialty choice, preparedness, satisfaction, teaching styles, entry criteria and institutional factors. METHOD: Aggregated data were collected for 50 measures across 29 UK medical schools. Data include institutional history (e.g. rate of production of hospital and GP specialists in the past), curricular influences (e.g. PBL schools, spend per student, staff-student ratio), selection measures (e.g. entry grades), teaching and assessment (e.g. traditional vs PBL, specialty teaching, self-regulated learning), student satisfaction, Foundation selection scores, Foundation satisfaction, postgraduate examination performance and fitness to practise (postgraduate progression, GMC sanctions). Six specialties (General Practice, Psychiatry, Anaesthetics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Internal Medicine, Surgery) were examined in more detail. RESULTS: Medical school differences are stable across time (median alpha = 0.835). The 50 measures were highly correlated, 395 (32.2%) of 1225 correlations being significant with p < 0.05, and 201 (16.4%) reached a Tukey-adjusted criterion of p < 0.0025. Problem-based learning (PBL) schools differ on many measures, including lower performance on postgraduate assessments. While these are in part explained by lower entry grades, a surprising finding is that schools such as PBL schools which reported greater student satisfaction with feedback also showed lower performance at postgraduate examinations. More medical school teaching of psychiatry, surgery and anaesthetics did not result in more specialist trainees. Schools that taught more general practice did have more graduates entering GP training, but those graduates performed less well in MRCGP examinations, the negative correlation resulting from numbers of GP trainees and exam outcomes being affected both by non-traditional teaching and by greater historical production of GPs. Postgraduate exam outcomes were also higher in schools with more self-regulated learning, but lower in larger medical schools. A path model for 29 measures found a complex causal nexus, most measures causing or being caused by other measures. Postgraduate exam performance was influenced by earlier attainment, at entry to Foundation and entry to medical school (the so-called academic backbone), and by self-regulated learning. Foundation measures of satisfaction, including preparedness, had no subsequent influence on outcomes. Fitness to practise issues were more frequent in schools producing more male graduates and more GPs. CONCLUSIONS: Medical schools differ in large numbers of ways that are causally interconnected. Differences between schools in postgraduate examination performance, training problems and GMC sanctions have important implications for the quality of patient care and patient safety

The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey: an analysis of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in 25 UK medical schools relating to timing, duration, teaching formats, teaching content, and problem-based learning.

BACKGROUND: What subjects UK medical schools teach, what ways they teach subjects, and how much they teach those subjects is unclear. Whether teaching differences matter is a separate, important question. This study provides a detailed picture of timetabled undergraduate teaching activity at 25 UK medical schools, particularly in relation to problem-based learning (PBL). METHOD: The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey used detailed timetables provided by 25 schools with standard 5-year courses. Timetabled teaching events were coded in terms of course year, duration, teaching format, and teaching content. Ten schools used PBL. Teaching times from timetables were validated against two other studies that had assessed GP teaching and lecture, seminar, and tutorial times. RESULTS: A total of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in the academic year 2014/2015 were analysed, including SSCs (student-selected components) and elective studies. A typical UK medical student receives 3960 timetabled hours of teaching during their 5-year course. There was a clear difference between the initial 2 years which mostly contained basic medical science content and the later 3 years which mostly consisted of clinical teaching, although some clinical teaching occurs in the first 2 years. Medical schools differed in duration, format, and content of teaching. Two main factors underlay most of the variation between schools, Traditional vs PBL teaching and Structured vs Unstructured teaching. A curriculum map comparing medical schools was constructed using those factors. PBL schools differed on a number of measures, having more PBL teaching time, fewer lectures, more GP teaching, less surgery, less formal teaching of basic science, and more sessions with unspecified content. DISCUSSION: UK medical schools differ in both format and content of teaching. PBL and non-PBL schools clearly differ, albeit with substantial variation within groups, and overlap in the middle. The important question of whether differences in teaching matter in terms of outcomes is analysed in a companion study (MedDifs) which examines how teaching differences relate to university infrastructure, entry requirements, student perceptions, and outcomes in Foundation Programme and postgraduate training

Assessing the impact of diagnosis and the related supportive care needs in patients with cutaneous melanoma

PURPOSE: Despite the large number of people affected by melanoma, little is known about the specific needs of melanoma patients. Understanding the effects of melanoma diagnosis and the specific supportive care needs of this group of patients is a necessary step towards provision of effective psychosocial care. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 15 patients with malignant melanoma of the skin. The sample size, which was purposive, included 8 females and 7 males from 27 to 78 years old. Data were analysed using the NVIVO 8 software and principles of thematic analysis. RESULTS: Four major areas were identified: (a) Emotional effects due to body image, fear of the sun and uncertainty for the future; (b) Effects on Relationships, with some patients in need of more support than others from family and work colleagues; (c) Functional effects due to on-going symptoms such as pain and lymphedema; and (d) Health System and Information Needs, around the clarity, quality and timing of the information received from the health care professionals. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that we often fail to pick up melanoma patients' health and psychosocial needs and fail to refer them appropriately, rather than the services not being available. Interventions should focus on patient and carer education about melanoma and sun protection, psychosocial support and effective information giving. Patient-reported outcome measures should routinely be collected to identify issues of specific concerns to the patients and directing them to the right services based on their individual needs

A community-sourced glossary of open scholarship terms

Open scholarship has transformed research, and introduced a host of new terms in the lexicon of researchers. The ‘Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Teaching’ (FORRT) community presents a crowdsourced glossary of open scholarship terms to facilitate education and effective communication between experts and newcomers

A community-sourced glossary of open scholarship terms

Open scholarship has transformed research, and introduced a host of new terms in the lexicon of researchers. The ‘Framework for Open and Reproducible Research Teaching’ (FORRT) community presents a crowdsourced glossary of open scholarship terms to facilitate education and effective communication between experts and newcomers

A community-sourced glossary of open scholarship terms.

From PubMed via Jisc Publications RouterPublication status: aheadofprin