A review of longitudinal community and hospital placements in medical education: BEME Guide No. 26

被引:125
|
作者
Thistlethwaite, J. E. [1 ]
Bartle, Emma [1 ]
Chong, Amy Ai Ling [2 ]
Dick, Marie-Louise [1 ]
King, David [1 ]
Mahoney, Sarah [3 ]
Papinczak, Tracey [4 ]
Tucker, George [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Queensland, Ctr Med Educ Res & Scholarship, Herston, Qld 4006, Australia
[2] Univ Queensland, Sch Med, Herston, Qld 4006, Australia
[3] Flinders Univ S Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia
[4] Univ Queensland, Fac Engn Architecture & Informat Technol, Herston, Qld 4006, Australia
[5] Univ Queensland, Rural Clin Sch, Herston, Qld 4006, Australia
关键词
PHYSICIAN ASSOCIATE PROGRAM; CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED CLERKSHIP; PRIMARY-CARE; GENERAL-PRACTICE; STUDENT PERFORMANCE; CLINICAL EDUCATION; CONTINUITY; EXPERIENCES; UNIVERSITY; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.3109/0142159X.2013.806981
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Background: Traditionally, clinical learning for medical students consists of short-term and opportunistic encounters with primarily acute-care patients, supervised by an array of clinician preceptors. In response to educational concerns, some medical schools have developed longitudinal placements rather than short-term rotations. Many of these longitudinal placements are also integrated across the core clinical disciplines, are commonly termed longitudinal integrated clerkships (LICs) and often situated in rural locations. This review aimed to explore, analyse and synthesise evidence relating to the effectiveness of longitudinal placements, for medical students in particular to determine which aspects are most critical to successful outcomes. Method: Extensive search of the literature resulted in 1679 papers and abstracts being considered, with 53 papers ultimately being included for review. The review group coded these 53 papers according to standard BEME review guidelines. Specific information extracted included: data relating to effectiveness, the location of the study, number of students involved, format, length and description of placement, the learning outcomes, research design, the impact level for evaluation and the main evaluation methods and findings. We applied a realist approach to consider what works well for whom and under what circumstances. Findings: The early LICs were all community-based immersion programs, situated in general practice and predominantly in rural settings. More recent LIC innovations were situated in tertiary-level specialist ambulatory care in urban settings. Not all placements were integrated across medical disciplines but were longitudinal in relation to location, patient base and/or supervision. Twenty-four papers focussed on one of four programs from different viewpoints. Most evaluations were student opinion (survey, interview, focus group) and/or student assessment results. Placements varied from one half day per week for six months through to full time immersion for more than 12 months. The predominant mechanism relating to factors influencing effectiveness was continuity of one or more of: patient care, supervision and mentorship, peer group and location. The success of LICs and participation satisfaction depended on the preparation of both students and clinical supervisors, and the level of support each received from their academic institutions. Conclusion: Longitudinal placements, including longitudinal integrated placements, are gaining in popularity as an alternative to traditional block rotations. Although relatively few established LICs currently exist, medical schools may look for ways to incorporate some of the principles of LICs more generally in their clinical education programmes. Further research is required to ascertain the optimum length of time for placements depending on the defined learning outcomes and timing within the programme, which students are most likely to benefit and the effects of context such as location and type of integration.
引用
收藏
页码:E1340 / E1364
页数:25
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Teaching professionalism in medical education: A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review. BEME Guide No. 25
    Birden, Hudson
    Glass, Nel
    Wilson, Ian
    Harrison, Michelle
    Usherwood, Tim
    Nass, Duncan
    [J]. MEDICAL TEACHER, 2013, 35 (07) : E1252 - E1266
  • [2] A scoping review of artificial intelligence in medical education: BEME Guide No. 84
    Gordon, Morris
    Daniel, Michelle
    Ajiboye, Aderonke
    Uraiby, Hussein
    Xu, Nicole Y.
    Bartlett, Rangana
    Hanson, Janice
    Haas, Mary
    Spadafore, Maxwell
    Gasiea, Rayhan Yousef
    Grafton-Clarke, Ciaran
    Michie, Colin
    Corral, Janet
    Kwan, Brian
    Dolmans, Diana
    Thammasitboon, Satid
    [J]. MEDICAL TEACHER, 2024, 46 (04) : 446 - 470
  • [3] Patient/service user involvement in medical education: A best evidence medical education (BEME) systematic review: BEME Guide No. 58
    Gordon, Morris
    Gupta, Simon
    Thornton, Debra
    Reid, Michael
    Mallen, Ernie
    Melling, Angela
    [J]. MEDICAL TEACHER, 2020, 42 (01) : 4 - 16
  • [4] Virtual interviewing for graduate medical education recruitment and selection: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 80
    Daniel, Michelle
    Gottlieb, Michael
    Wooten, Darcy
    Stojan, Jennifer
    Haas, Mary R. C.
    Bailey, Jacob
    Evans, Sean
    Lee, Daniel
    Goldberg, Charles
    Fernandez, Jorge
    Jassal, Simerjot K.
    Rudolf, Frances
    Guluma, Kama
    Lander, Lina
    Pott, Emily
    Goldhaber, Nicole H.
    Thammasitboon, Satid
    Uraiby, Hussain
    Grafton-Clarke, Ciaran
    Gordon, Morris
    Pawlikowska, Teresa
    Corral, Janet
    Partha, Indu
    Kolman, Karyn B.
    Westrick, Jennifer
    Dolmans, Diana
    [J]. MEDICAL TEACHER, 2022, 44 (12) : 1313 - 1331
  • [5] A BEME systematic review of UK undergraduate medical education in the general practice setting: BEME Guide No. 32
    Park, Sophie
    Khan, Nada F.
    Hampshire, Mandy
    Knox, Richard
    Malpass, Alice
    Thomas, James
    Anagnostelis, Betsy
    Newman, Mark
    Bower, Peter
    Rosenthal, Joe
    Murray, Elizabeth
    Iliffe, Steve
    Heneghan, Carl
    Band, Amanda
    Georgieva, Zoya
    [J]. MEDICAL TEACHER, 2015, 37 (07) : 611 - 630
  • [6] A BEME systematic review of the effects of interprofessional education: BEME Guide No. 39
    Reeves, Scott
    Fletcher, Simon
    Barr, Hugh
    Birch, Ivan
    Boet, Sylvain
    Davies, Nigel
    McFadyen, Angus
    Rivera, Josette
    Kitto, Simon
    [J]. MEDICAL TEACHER, 2016, 38 (07) : 656 - 668
  • [7] BEME Guide No. 1: Best evidence medical education
    Harden, RM
    Grant, J
    Buckley, G
    Hart, IR
    [J]. MEDICAL TEACHER, 1999, 21 (06) : 553 - 562
  • [8] Utility of selection methods for specialist medical training: A BEME (best evidence medical education) systematic review: BEME guide no. 45
    Roberts, Chris
    Khanna, Priya
    Rigby, Louise
    Bartle, Emma
    Llewellyn, Anthony
    Gustavs, Julie
    Newton, Libby
    Newcombe, James P.
    Davies, Mark
    Thistlethwaite, Jill
    Lynam, James
    [J]. MEDICAL TEACHER, 2018, 40 (01) : 3 - 19
  • [9] Doctor role modelling in medical education: BEME Guide No. 27
    Passi, Vimmi
    Johnson, Samantha
    Peile, Ed
    Wright, Scott
    Hafferty, Fred
    Johnson, Neil
    [J]. MEDICAL TEACHER, 2013, 35 (09) : E1422 - E1436
  • [10] An update on developments in medical education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: A BEME scoping review: BEME Guide No. 64
    Daniel, Michelle
    Gordon, Morris
    Patricio, Madalena
    Hider, Ahmad
    Pawlik, Cameron
    Bhagdev, Rhea
    Ahmad, Shoaib
    Alston, Sebastian
    Park, Sophie
    Pawlikowska, Teresa
    Rees, Eliot
    Doyle, Andrea Jane
    Pammi, Mohan
    Thammasitboon, Satid
    Haas, Mary
    Peterson, William
    Lew, Madelyn
    Khamees, Deena
    Spadafore, Maxwell
    Clarke, Nicola
    Stojan, Jennifer
    [J]. MEDICAL TEACHER, 2021, 43 (03) : 253 - 271