Patient safety and quality improvement education: a cross-sectional study of medical students' preferences and attitudes

Abstract Background Recent educational initiatives by both the World Health Organization and the American Association of Medical Colleges have endorsed integrating teaching of patient safety and quality improvement (QI) to medical students. Curriculum development should take into account learners’ attitudes and preferences. We surveyed students to assess preferences and attitudes about QI and patient safety education. Methods An electronic survey was developed through focus groups, literature review, and local expert opinion and distributed via email to all medical students at a single medical school in the spring of 2012. Results A greater proportion of students reported previous exposure to patient safety than to quality improvement topics (79% vs. 47%). More than 80% of students thought patient safety was of the same or greater importance than basic science or clinical skills whereas quality improvement was rated as the same or more important by about 70% of students. Students rated real life examples of quality improvement projects and participation in these projects with actual patients as potentially the most helpful (mean scores 4.2/5 and 3.9/5 respectively). For learning about patient safety, real life examples of mistakes were again rated most highly (mean scores 4.5/5 for MD presented mistakes and 4.1/5 for patient presented mistakes). Students rated QI as very important to their future career regardless of intended specialty (mean score 4.5/5). Conclusions Teaching of patient safety and quality improvement to medical students will be best received if it is integrated into clinical education rather than solely taught in pre-clinical lectures or through independent computer modules. Students recognize that these topics are important to their careers as future physicians regardless of intended specialty

Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: What are the big questions?

Background: Over the past 10-15 years, a substantial amount of work has been done by the scientific, regulatory, and business communities to elucidate the effects and risks of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in the environment. Objective: This review was undertaken to identify key outstanding issues regarding the effects of PPCPs on human and ecological health in order to ensure that future resources will be focused on the most important areas. Data sources: To better understand and manage the risks of PPCPs in the environment, we used the "key question" approach to identify the principle issues that need to be addressed. Initially, questions were solicited from academic, government, and business communities around the world. A list of 101 questions was then discussed at an international expert workshop, and a top-20 list was developed. Following the workshop, workshop attendees ranked the 20 questions by importance. Data synthesis: The top 20 priority questions fell into seven categories: a) prioritization of substances for assessment, b) pathways of exposure, c) bioavailability and uptake, d) effects characterization, e) risk and relative risk, f) antibiotic resistance, and g) risk management. Conclusions: A large body of information is now available on PPCPs in the environment. This exercise prioritized the most critical questions to aid in development of future research programs on the topic.Centro de Investigaciones del Medioambient

Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: What are the big questions?

Background: Over the past 10-15 years, a substantial amount of work has been done by the scientific, regulatory, and business communities to elucidate the effects and risks of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in the environment. Objective: This review was undertaken to identify key outstanding issues regarding the effects of PPCPs on human and ecological health in order to ensure that future resources will be focused on the most important areas. Data sources: To better understand and manage the risks of PPCPs in the environment, we used the "key question" approach to identify the principle issues that need to be addressed. Initially, questions were solicited from academic, government, and business communities around the world. A list of 101 questions was then discussed at an international expert workshop, and a top-20 list was developed. Following the workshop, workshop attendees ranked the 20 questions by importance. Data synthesis: The top 20 priority questions fell into seven categories: a) prioritization of substances for assessment, b) pathways of exposure, c) bioavailability and uptake, d) effects characterization, e) risk and relative risk, f) antibiotic resistance, and g) risk management. Conclusions: A large body of information is now available on PPCPs in the environment. This exercise prioritized the most critical questions to aid in development of future research programs on the topic.Fil: Boxall, Alistair B. A.. University of York; Reino UnidoFil: Rudd, Murray A.. University of York; Reino UnidoFil: Brooks, Bryan W.. Baylor University; Estados UnidosFil: Caldwell, Daniel J.. Johnson & Johnson; Estados UnidosFil: Choi, Kyungho. Seoul National University; Corea del SurFil: Hickmann, Silke. Umweltbundesamt; AlemaniaFil: Innes, Elizabeth. Health Canada; CanadáFil: Ostapyk, Kim. Health Canada; CanadáFil: Staveley, Jane P.. Exponent; Estados UnidosFil: Verslycke, Tim. Gradient; Estados UnidosFil: Ankley, Gerald T.. United States Environmental Protection Agency; Estados UnidosFil: Beazley, Karen F.. Dalhousie University Halifax; CanadáFil: Belanger, Scott E.. Procter And Gamble; Estados UnidosFil: Berninger, Jason P.. Baylor University; Estados UnidosFil: Carriquiriborde, Pedro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas. Departamento de Química. Centro de Investigaciones del Medio Ambiente; ArgentinaFil: Coors, Anja. Ect Oekotoxikologie Gmbh; AlemaniaFil: DeLeo, Paul C.. American Cleaning Institute; Estados UnidosFil: Dyer, Scott D.. Procter And Gamble; Estados UnidosFil: Ericson, Jon F.. Pfizer Inc.; Estados UnidosFil: Gagné, François. Environment Canada; CanadáFil: Giesy, John P.. University of Saskatchewan; CanadáFil: Gouin, Todd. Unilever; Reino UnidoFil: Hallstrom, Lars. University of Alberta; CanadáFil: Karlsson, Maja V.. University of York; Reino UnidoFil: Joakim Larsson, D.G.. University of Göteborg; AlemaniaFil: Lazorchak, James M.. United States Environmental Protection Agency; Estados UnidosFil: Mastrocco, Frank. Pfizer Inc.; Estados UnidosFil: McLaughlin, Alison. Health Canada; CanadáFil: McMaster, Mark E.. Environment Canada; CanadáFil: Meyerhoff, Roger D.. Eli Lilly And Company; Estados UnidosFil: Moore, Roberta. Health Canada; CanadáFil: Parrott, Joanne L.. Environment Canada; CanadáFil: Snape, Jason R.. AstraZeneca UK Ltd.; Reino UnidoFil: Murray-Smith, Richard. AstraZeneca UK Ltd.; Reino UnidoFil: Servos, Mark R.. University of Waterloo; CanadáFil: Sibley, Paul K.. University of Guelph; CanadáFil: Straub, Jürg Oliver. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.; SuizaFil: Szabo, Nora D.. University of Ottawa; CanadáFil: Topp, Edward. Agriculture Et Agroalimentaire Canada; CanadáFil: Tetreault, Gerald R.. University of Waterloo; CanadáFil: Trudeau, Vance L.. University of Ottawa; CanadáFil: Van Der Kraak, Glen. University of Guelph; Canad