A Core Curriculum for Sociology in UK Undergraduate Medical Education

The valuable contribution of sociology to medicine has long been recognised in the UK and since 2009 the profession’s regulator, the General Medical Council (GMC), has reflected this in the learning outcomes required of all UK graduates in medicine. This recognition has created the need for support to those involved in student learning through programme design, development and delivery. This core curriculum for sociology in medical education provides a robust, evidence and practice-based means of linking sociological knowledge, content and topics to the GMC’s higher-level outcomes. The development of the core curriculum was an inclusive and collaborative process involving individuals responsible for teaching sociology in UK medical schools and a wide range of stakeholders including patient representatives, clinicians, students and medical educationalists. Our methodology was participative and orientated towards establishing consensus without sacrificing attention to diversity of views and experience. It coupled consultation with reviews of materials and research relevant to the teaching of sociology in medicine. The core curriculum comprises 6 topics. The first, entitled the sociological perspective, underpins those that follow. Taken together these topics represent a comprehensive, coherent and detailed guide to a curriculum fit for the purpose of enabling students to meet the GMC outcomes for graduates in medicine. For each topic, the document provides a guide to core learning outcomes and indicative content. The core curriculum recognises the diversity of approaches to pedagogy in medical education and also the contexts and structures within which teaching and learning take place. The curriculum identifies a range of learning and teaching opportunities such as patient involvement and the integration of sociological content into the clinical aspects of medical education. It also highlights challenges such as preserving modes and methods of assessment relevant to the demonstration of disciplinary knowledge required of students. The content of the curriculum is mapped to Tomorrow’s Doctors 2009/2015 and enables students to meet the outcomes relating to ‘scholar and scientist’ as laid down by the GMC

Utilisation of specialist epilepsy services and antiseizure medication adherence rates in a cohort of people with epilepsy (PWE) accessing emergency care

Background: An epilepsy-related attendance at A&E is associated an increased risk of subsequent death within 6 months. Although further work is required to provide a definitive explanation to account for these findings, in the interim it would seem reasonable that services are designed to ensure timely access and provide support at a time of greatest risk. We aim to determine the frequency of patients accessing specialist neurology services following an epilepsy-related admission/unscheduled care episode and consider ASM adherence at the point of attendance. Methods: Patients were identified retrospectively via the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde live integrated epilepsy Dashboard following an unscheduled epilepsy-related admission or A&E attendance between 1st January 2022 and 30th June 2022. We calculated adherence to anti-seizure medication for a period of 6 months prior to admission and defined poor medication adherence as a medication possession ratio of less than 80%. We evaluated the rate of any outpatient neurology clinic attendance in the subsequent 3, 6 and 12 months following an epilepsy-related unscheduled care episode. Additional clinical information was identified via the electronic patient records. Results: Between 1st Jan 2022 and 30th June 2022, there were 266 emergency care seizure-related attendances. The mean age at attendance was 46 years (range: 16-91). Most of PWE were males (63%) and 37% were females. Epilepsy classification-29.3% had GGE, 41.7 % had focal epilepsy, and in 29% of cases the epilepsy was unclassified. Of the admissions, 107/ 266 (40.2%) generated follow-up within 6 months of attendance. Poor medication adherence was noted in 54/266 (20.3%). 28.2% of cases had input from on-call neurology service during admission/ED attendance, and of those 60% had ASM adjusted. 18% of attendances had a background diagnosis of learning disability. One-third of attendances of PWE had a history of mental health disorder 35% (93/266). 25% of ED attendances noted an active history of alcohol consumption misuse or/and recreational drug use. 14 (5.5%) of PWE died during the period of interest (12 months following the last ED visit). In 6/14 (42.3%) death was associated with poor medication adherence. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that a significant proportion of patients who experienced seizure-related admissions/ attendance did not access specialist neurology services in a timely manner. In addition, poor medication adherence remains a problem for a substantial number of people living with epilepsy. Early access to specialist services may go some way to improving care and reducing excessive mortality in PWE by allowing anti-seizure medication to be titrated and poor medication adherence to be addressed in those at greatest risk

Comparison of COVID-19 outcomes among shielded and non-shielded populations

Many western countries used shielding (extended self-isolation) of people presumed to be at high-risk from COVID-19 to protect them and reduce healthcare demand. To investigate the effectiveness of this strategy, we linked family practitioner, prescribing, laboratory, hospital and death records and compared COVID-19 outcomes among shielded and non-shielded individuals in the West of Scotland. Of the 1.3 million population, 27,747 (2.03%) were advised to shield, and 353,085 (26.85%) were classified a priori as moderate risk. COVID-19 testing was more common in the shielded (7.01%) and moderate risk (2.03%) groups, than low risk (0.73%). Referent to low-risk, the shielded group had higher confirmed infections (RR 8.45, 95% 7.44–9.59), case-fatality (RR 5.62, 95% CI 4.47–7.07) and population mortality (RR 57.56, 95% 44.06–75.19). The moderate-risk had intermediate confirmed infections (RR 4.11, 95% CI 3.82–4.42) and population mortality (RR 25.41, 95% CI 20.36–31.71) but, due to their higher prevalence, made the largest contribution to deaths (PAF 75.30%). Age ≥ 70 years accounted for 49.55% of deaths. In conclusion, in spite of the shielding strategy, high risk individuals were at increased risk of death. Furthermore, to be effective as a population strategy, shielding criteria would have needed to be widely expanded to include other criteria, such as the elderly

Establishing a primary care audit and feedback implementation laboratory: a consensus study

Background: There is a significant variation among individual primary care providers in prescribing of potentially problematic, low-value medicines which cause avoidable patient harm. Audit and feedback is generally effective at improving prescribing. However, progress has been hindered by research waste, leading to unanswered questions about how to include audit and feedback for specific problems and circumstances. Trials of different ways of providing audit and feedback in implementation laboratories have been proposed as a way of improving population healthcare while generating robust evidence on feedback effects. However, there is limited experience in their design and delivery. Aim: To explore priorities, feasibility, and ethical challenges of establishing a primary care prescribing audit and feedback implementation laboratory. Design and setting: Two-stage Delphi consensus process involving primary care pharmacy leads, audit and feedback researchers, and patient and public. Method: Participants initially scored statements relating to priorities, feasibility, and ethical considerations for an implementation laboratory. These covered current feedback practice, priority topics for feedback, usefulness of feedback in improving prescribing and different types of prescribing data, acceptability and desirability of different organization levels of randomization, options for trial consent, different methods of delivering feedback, and interest in finding out how effective different ways of presenting feedback would be. After receiving collated results, participants then scored the items again. The consensus was defined using the GRADE criteria. The results were analyzed by group and overall score. Results: Fourteen participants reached consensus for 38 out of 55 statements. Addressing antibiotic and opioid prescribing emerged as the highest priorities for action. The panel supported statements around addressing highpriority prescribing issues, taking an “opt-out” approach to practice consent if waiving consent was not permitted, and randomizing at lower rather than higher organizational levels. Participants supported patient-level prescribing data and further research evaluating most of the different feedback methods we presented them with. Conclusions: There is a good level of support for evaluating a wide range of potential enhancements to improve the effects of feedback on prescribing. The successful design and delivery of a primary care audit and feedback implementation laboratory depend on identifying shared priorities and addressing practical and ethical considerations

Escaping the trips trap: The political economy of free and open source software in Africa.

Across sub-Saharan Africa, the promise of ‘informational development’ is proclaimed. The global governance of intellectual property rights (IPRs), however, currently structured through the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreement and overseen by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), makes much software expensive to deploy. There is an alternative: open-source and/or free software ameliorates many of the cost problems countries in Africa have anticipated as they have changed their laws to protect IPRs; using non-proprietary software will enable them to deploy extensive computerisation without making large payments to suppliers from the developed countries. By escaping the TRIPs’ trap, many Africans will be better able to enjoy the potential benefits of ‘informational development’