Communicating curriculum reform to students: Advice in hindsight.....

BACKGOUND: In view of the changing health care needs of communities, curriculum reform of traditional curricula is inevitable. In order to allay the apprehension that may accompany such change, curriculum development and implementation should be an inclusive process, with both staff and students being well informed of the planned reform. In 2001, the Nelson R. Mandela School of Medicine implemented Year 1 of a problem-based learning curriculum. During the design phase, students and staff were invited to take part in the development and were kept abreast of developments through meetings and newsletters. METHOD: A survey of Years 1–5 students of the last intake into the traditional curriculum was undertaken a few months prior to the implementation of the new programme. RESULTS: Students were generally well informed about the impending change, having heard about it from fellow students and staff. The more senior the students, the less the perceived impact of the reform. Although most of what students had heard was correct, some, however, had misconceptions that were generally extreme views (e.g. all self-directed learning; no Anatomy) about the new programme. Others expressed valid concerns (e.g. underpreparedness of students from disadvantaged schools; overcrowding in hospitals). CONCLUSIONS: Advice offered to institutions considering curriculum reform include using various methods to inform internal and external affected parties, ensuring that the student representative body and staff is well informed, reiterating the need for the change, confirming that the new programme meets recognised standards and that the students most affected are reassured about their future studies

Dual practice in the health sector: review of the evidence

This paper reports on income generation practices among civil servants in the health sector, with a particular emphasis on dual practice. It first approaches the subject of public–private overlap. Thereafter it focuses on coping strategies in general and then on dual practice in particular. To compensate for unrealistically low salaries, health workers rely on individual coping strategies. Many clinicians combine salaried, public-sector clinical work with a fee-for-service private clientele. This dual practice is often a means by which health workers try to meet their survival needs, reflecting the inability of health ministries to ensure adequate salaries and working conditions. Dual practice may be considered present in most countries, if not all. Nevertheless, there is surprisingly little hard evidence about the extent to which health workers resort to dual practice, about the balance of economic and other motives for doing so, or about the consequences for the proper use of the scarce public resources dedicated to health. In this paper dual practice is approached from six different perspectives: (1) conceptual, regarding what is meant by dual practice; (2) descriptive, trying to develop a typology of dual practices; (3) quantitative, trying to determine its prevalence; (4) impact on personal income, the health care system and health status; (5) qualitative, looking at the reasons why practitioners so frequently remain in public practice while also working in the private sector and at contextual, personal life, institutional and professional factors that make it easier or more difficult to have dual practices; and (6) possible interventions to deal with dual practice