The decision having the most serious consequences for a student taking an assessment is the one to pass or fail that student. For this reason, the reliability of the pass/fail decision must be determined for high quality assessments, just as the measurement reliability of the point values. Assessments in a particular subject (graded course credit) are often composed of multiple components that must be passed independently of each other. When "conjunctively" combining separate pass/fail decisions, as with other complex decision rules for passing, adequate methods of analysis are necessary for estimating the accuracy and consistency of these classifications. To date, very few papers have addressed this issue; a generally applicable procedure was published by Douglas and Mislevy in 2010. Using the example of an assessment comprised of several parts that must be passed separately, this study analyzes the reliability underlying the decision to pass or fail students and discusses the impact of an improved method for identifying those who do not fulfill the minimum requirements.The accuracy and consistency of the decision to pass or fail an examinee in the subject cluster Internal Medicine/General Medicine/Clinical Chemistry at the University of Heidelberg's Faculty of Medicine was investigated. This cluster requires students to separately pass three components (two written exams and an OSCE), whereby students may reattempt to pass each component twice. Our analysis was carried out using the method described by Douglas and Mislevy.Frequently, when complex logical connections exist between the individual pass/fail decisions in the case of low failure rates, only a very low reliability for the overall decision to grant graded course credit can be achieved, even if high reliabilities exist for the various components. For the example analyzed here, the classification accuracy and consistency when conjunctively combining the three individual parts is relatively low with κ=0.49 or κ=0.47, despite the good reliability of over 0.75 for each of the three components. The option to repeat each component twice leads to a situation in which only about half of the candidates who do not satisfy the minimum requirements would fail the overall assessment, while the other half is able to continue their studies despite having deficient knowledge and skills.The method put forth by Douglas and Mislevy allows the analysis of the decision accuracy and consistency for complex combinations of scores from different components. Even in the case of highly reliable components, it is not necessarily so that a reliable pass/fail decision has been reached - for instance in the case of low failure rates. Assessments must be administered with the explicit goal of identifying examinees that do not fulfill the minimum requirements.Zielsetzung: Die gravierendsten Konsequenzen für einen Studierenden bei einer Prüfung besitzt die Entscheidung über „bestanden“ oder „durchgefallen“. Wie die Messzuverlässigkeit der Punktwerte muss bei qualitativ hochwertigen Prüfungen deshalb auch die Zuverlässigkeit der Entscheidung „bestanden“ oder „durchgefallen“ bestimmt werden.Oft setzen sich Prüfungen eines Fachs (Leistungsnachweise) aus mehreren Teilprüfungen zusammen, die z. B. unabhängig voneinander bestanden werden müssen. In diesem Fall einer „konjunktiven“ Verknüpfung der Einzelentscheidungen „bestanden/durchgefallen“ wie auch bei anderen komplexen Bestehensregelungen sind zur Abschätzung der Genauigkeit und Konsistenz der Entscheidung „bestanden/durchgefallen“ adäquate Auswertungsverfahren erforderlich. Bislang liegen zu dieser Problemstellung nur wenige Arbeiten vor, ein allgemein verwendbares Verfahren wurde 2010 von Douglas und Mislevy publiziert.In der Studie soll am exemplarischen Beispiel einer zusammengesetzten Prüfung, bei der mehrere Teilprüfungen unabhängig voneinander bestanden werden müssen, eine Analyse der Zuverlässigkeit der Entscheidung „bestanden/durchgefallen“ durchgeführt und Konsequenzen für eine verbesserte Methodik zur Identifikation von Studierenden, die die gestellten Mindestanforderungen nicht erfüllen, diskutiert werden.Methodik: Untersucht wird die Entscheidungsgenauigkeit und -konsistenz von „bestanden/durchgefallen“ des Leistungsnachweises Innere Medizin/Allgemeinmedizin/Klinische Chemie der medizinischen Fakultät Heidelberg. Für diesen müssen drei Teilprüfungen (zwei Klausuren und ein OSCE) unabhängig voneinander bestanden werden, wobei jede Teilprüfung für sich zweimal wiederholt werden kann. Die Analyse erfolgt mit dem Verfahren von Douglas und Mislevy.Ergebnisse: Auch bei hohen Reliabilitäten von Teilprüfungen lässt sich bei komplexen logischen Verknüpfungen der Einzelentscheidungen „bestanden/durchgefallen“ im Fall niedriger Nichtbestehensquoten häufig nur eine geringe Zuverlässigkeit der Gesamtentscheidung erreichen. So ist im hier untersuchten Beispiel trotz der bei allen drei Teilprüfungen guten Reliabilitäten von über 0,75 die Entscheidungsgenauigkeit und -konsistenz bei konjunktiver Verknüpfung der drei Prüfungsteile mit κ=0,49 bzw. κ=0,47 relativ niedrig. Die Möglichkeit, die Teilprüfungen jeweils zweimal zu wiederholen, führt dazu, dass von den Studierenden, die den Mindestanforderungen nicht genügen, nur etwa die Hälfte endgültig die Gesamtprüfung nicht bestehen würde, die andere Hälfte jedoch trotz mangelhafter Kenntnisse/Fertigkeiten ihr Studium fortsetzen kann.Schlussfolgerung: Das Verfahren von Douglas und Mislevy erlaubt, Entscheidungsgenauigkeit und -konsistenz komplexer Verknüpfungen von Teilprüfungen zu analysieren. Auch bei hochreliablen Teilprüfungen wird – etwa im Fall niedriger Nichtbestehensquoten – nicht notwendigerweise eine zuverlässige Entscheidung über „bestanden“ oder „durchgefallen“ erreicht. Hierzu müssten Prüfungen mit dem expliziten Ziel der Identifizierung von Studierenden, die den Mindestanforderungen nicht genügen, durchgeführt werden.
Background: Although demands on family physicians (FP) are to a large extent similar in the European Union, uniform assessment standards for family medicine (FM) specialty training and assessment do not exist. Aim of this pilot study was to elicit and compare the different modalities and assessment methods of FM specialty training in five European countries. Methods: A semi structured survey was undertaken based on a convenient sample in five European countries (Denmark, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom). The respondents were asked to respond to ten items about aspects of FM specialty training and assessment methods in their respective countries. If available, this data was completed with information from official websites of the countries involved. Results: FM specialty training is performed heterogeneously in the surveyed countries. Training time periods range from three to five years, in some countries requiring a foundation program of up to two years. Most countries perform longitudinal assessment during FM specialty training using a combination of competence-based approach with additional formative and summative assessment. There is some evidence on the assessments methods used, however the assessment method used and costs of assessment differs remarkably between the participating countries. Conclusions: Longitudinal and competence-based assessment is the presently preferred approach for FM specialty training. Countries which use less multifaceted methods for assessment could learn from best practice. Potential changes have significant cost implications.
Background: Simulation-based teamwork trainings are considered a powerful training method to advance teamwork, which becomes more relevant in medical education. The measurement of teamwork is of high importance and several instruments have been developed for various medical domains to meet this need. To our knowledge, no theoretically-based and easy-to-use measurement instrument has been published nor developed specifically for simulation-based teamwork trainings of medical students. Internist ward-rounds function as an important example of teamwork in medicine. Purposes: The purpose of this study was to provide a validated, theoretically-based instrument that is easy-to-use. Furthermore, this study aimed to identify if and when rater scores relate to performance. Methods: Based on a theoretical framework for teamwork behaviour, items regarding four teamwork components (Team Coordination, Team Cooperation, Information Exchange, Team Adjustment Behaviours) were developed. In study one, three ward-round scenarios, simulated by 69 students, were videotaped and rated independently by four trained raters. The instrument was tested for the embedded psychometric properties and factorial structure. In study two, the instrument was tested for construct validity with an external criterion with a second set of 100 students and four raters. Results: In study one, the factorial structure matched the theoretical components but was unable to separate Information Exchange and Team Cooperation. The preliminary version showed adequate psychometric properties (Cronbach’s α=.75). In study two, the instrument showed physician rater scores were more reliable in measurement than those of student raters. Furthermore, a close correlation between the scale and clinical performance as an external criteria was shown (r=.64) and the sufficient psychometric properties were replicated (Cronbach’s α=.78). Conclusions: The validation allows for use of the simulated teamwork assessment scale in undergraduate medical ward-round trainings to reliably measure teamwork by physicians. Further studies are needed to verify the applicability of the instrument.
AIM:Using the data from graduate surveys, this study aims to analyze which factors related to teaching and learning at the Freiburg Faculty of Medicine can influence study success.BACKGROUND:Study success and the factors influencing it have long been the subject of investigation, with study success being measured in terms of easily quantifiable indicators (final grades, student satisfaction, etc.). In recent years, it has also frequently been assessed in terms of graduate competency levels. Graduate surveys are considered suitable instruments for measuring these dimensions of study success.METHOD:Data from three Freiburg graduate surveys conducted one and a half years after graduation were drawn upon for the analysis. Study success was operationalized using four indicators: results on the written section of the M2 exam, self-assessment of medical expertise and scientific expertise, and student satisfaction. Using multiple regression analyses, the predictive power was calculated for selected variables, also measured by the graduate surveys, for the different study success indicators.RESULTS:It was possible to identify models that contribute slightly or moderately to the prediction of study success. The score earned on the university entrance qualification demonstrated itself to be the strongest predictor for forecasting the M2 written exam: R(2) is between 0.08 and 0.22 for the three surveys. Different variables specific to degree program structure and teaching are helpful for predicting medical expertise (R(2)=0.04-0.32) and student satisfaction (R(2)=0.12-0.35). The two variables, structure and curricular sequencing of the degree program and combination of theory and practice, show themselves to be significant, sample-invariant predictors (β-weight(Structure)=0.21-0.58, β-weight(Combination)=0.27-0.56). For scientific expertise, no sample-independent predictors could be determined.CONCLUSION:Factors describing teaching hardly provide any assistance when predicting the written M2 exam score, which makes sense to the extent that teaching goes far beyond the heavily knowledge-based content of the written M2 exam. The lack of predictability for scientific expertise is most likely explained in that these have been only rarely included in the curriculum and often inexplicitly so. The variable combination of theory and practice appears to be significant for imparting medical expertise and the development of student satisfaction. The extent to which these relationships are practically relevant needs to be explored in further studies. A specific limitation is that the measurement of expertise and skill is based solely on self-assessments.
Aim: The aim of this study is to analyze the grades given for the oral/practical part of the German State Examination at the Medical Faculty of Freiburg. We examined whether or not the grades given for the written and the oral/practical examinations correlated and if differences in grading between the Freiburg University Medical Center (UMC) and the other teaching hospitals could be found. In order to improve the quality of the state examination, the medical school has been offering standardized training for examiners for several years. We evaluated whether or not trained and untrained examiners differed in their grading of the exam and how these differences have changed over time. Methods: The results of the 2012 spring and fall exams were analyzed (N=315). The relevant data set was made available to us by the Baden-Württemberg Examination Office (Landesprüfungsamt). The data were analyzed by means of descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: We observed a correlation of ρ=0.460** between the grades for the written and the oral/practical exams. The UMC and the teaching hospitals did not differ significantly in their grade distributions. Compared to untrained examiners, trained ones assigned the grade of “very good” less often. Furthermore, they displayed a significantly higher variance in the grades given (p=0.007, phi=0.165). This effect is stronger when concentrating specifically on those examiners who took part in the training less than a year before. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that the standardized training for examiners at the Medical Faculty of Freiburg is effective for quality assurance. As a consequence, more examiners should be motivated to take part in the training.
Interprofessional Education at undergraduate level has the aim of laying the groundwork for later interprofessional collaboration among those working in the field of healthcare and, as a result, of contributing to reliable health care outcomes for patient-centred care. Within the scope of this committee, the topic was approached not only from the necessary perspective of healthcare provision, but also from an educational standpoint and the recommendations formulated here focus on the educational and pedagogical perspectives. This position statement can be used as a stimulus for further discussions that must be held in the areas of health and education. A systematic perspective connecting both areas is absolutely necessary for implementing these recommendations. In past years, the committee has looked closely at the national situations in the German-speaking countries2 concerning education in the health professions and also at international experiences regarding collaboration among the health professions. An inventory of national and international approaches and concepts in Interprofessional Education was compiled, and empirical studies investigating the effectiveness of interprofessional cooperation and interprofessional learning were reviewed and analyzed. The criteria for dealing with the structures and content indentified in the studies as being pre-requisite for successful implementation of Interprofessional Education, along with the detrimental factors, were compiled and form the basis of this position statement. Firstly, the initial status, cooperative efforts, and national and international examples are presented, and the current state of research is summarized. Then, the committee’s recommendations are given for the corresponding implementation strategies to improve Interprofessional Education.
INTRODUCTION:Progress tests provide students feedback on their level of proficiency over the course of their medical studies. Peer-assisted learning and competency-based education have become increasingly important in medical education. Although progress tests have been proven to be useful as a longitudinal feedback instrument, there are currently no progress tests that have been created in cooperation with students or that focus on competency in medical education. In this study, we investigated the extent to which students can be included in the development of a progress test and demonstrated that aspects of knowledge related to competency can be represented on a competency-based progress test.METHODS:A two-dimensional blueprint for 144 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) covering groups of medical subjects and groups of competency areas was generated by three expert groups for developing the competency-based progress test. A total of 31 students from seven medical schools in Germany actively participated in this exercise. After completing an intensive and comprehensive training programme, the students generated and reviewed the test questions for the competency-based progress test using a separate platform of the ItemManagementSystem (IMS). This test was administered as a formative test to 469 students in a pilot study in November 2013 at eight medical schools in Germany. The scores were analysed for the overall test and differentiated according to the subject groups and competency areas.RESULTS:A pool of more than 200 MCQs was compiled by the students for pilot use, of which 118 student-generated MCQs were used in the progress test. University instructors supplemented this pool with 26 MCQs, which primarily addressed the area of scientific skills. The post-review showed that student-generated MCQs were of high quality with regard to test statistic criteria and content. Overall, the progress test displayed a very high reliability. When the academic years were compared, the progress test mapped out over the course of study not only by the overall test but also in terms of the subject groups and competency areas.OUTLOOK:Further development in cooperation with students will be continued. Focus will be on compiling additional questions and test formats that can represent competency at a higher skill level, such as key feature questions, situational judgement test questions and OSCE. In addition, the feedback formats will be successively expanded. The intention is also to offer the formative competency-based progress test online.
Objectives: Increasingly, communicative competencies are becoming a permanent feature of training and assessment in German-speaking medical schools (n=43; Germany, Austria, Switzerland – ”D-A-CH”). In support of further curricular development of communicative competencies, the survey by the “Communicative and Social Competencies” (KusK) committee of the German Society for Medical Education (GMA) systematically appraises the scope of and form in which teaching and assessment take place. Methods: The iterative online questionnaire, developed in cooperation with KusK, comprises 70 questions regarding instruction (n=14), assessment (n=48), local conditions (n=5), with three fields for further remarks. Per location, two to three individuals who were familiar with the respective institute’s curriculum were invited to take part in the survey. Results: Thirty-nine medical schools (40 degree programmes) took part in the survey. Communicative competencies are taught in all of the programmes. Ten degree programmes have a longitudinal curriculum for communicative competencies; 25 programmes offer this in part. Sixteen of the 40 programmes use the Basler Consensus Statement for orientation. In over 80% of the degree programmes, communicative competencies are taught in the second and third year of studies. Almost all of the programmes work with simulated patients (n=38) and feedback (n=37). Exams are exclusively summative (n=11), exclusively formative (n=3), or both summative and formative (n=16) and usually take place in the fifth or sixth year of studies (n=22 and n=20). Apart from written examinations (n=15) and presentations (n=9), practical examinations are primarily administered (OSCE, n=31); WPA (n=8), usually with self-developed scales (OSCE, n=19). With regards to the examiners’ training and the manner of results-reporting to the students, there is a high variance. Conclusions: Instruction in communicative competencies has been implemented at all 39 of the participating medical schools. For the most part, communicative competencies instruction in the D-A-C-H region takes place in small groups and is tested using the OSCE. The challenges for further curricular development lie in the expansion of feedback, the critical evaluation of appropriate assessment strategies, and in the quality assurance of exams.
AIM:Boor et al developed and validated the questionnaire D-RECT (Dutch Residency Educational Climate Test ) to measure the clinical learning environment within the medical specialist training. In this study, a German version of this questionnaire (D-RECT German) is analyzed regarding testtheoretical properties. PROBLEM:Are the results of Boor et al replicable as a proof for validity of the questionnaire D-RECT? MATERIAL & METHODS:The study was performed as online survey using the questionnaire D-RECT German (50 items in 11 subscales). To determine item characteristics and internal consistency (Cronbach's α), item- and reliability analyses were performed. Furthermore, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed using a model for maximum-likelihood estimation to evaluate validity. RESULTS:This replication study on the psychometric properties of the D-RECT with 255 residents at 17 German hospitals revealed heterogeneous discriminatory power for all items and an internal consistency of Cronbach's α between 0.57 and 0.85. Within the confirmatory factor analysis, 6 items showed standardized regression coeffizients <0.5, two of them in the subscale "Attendings role". Furthermore, strong interdependencies (>0.7) were found between the subscales "Supervision", "Coaching" and "Attendings role". CONCLUSION:The present replication study with the D-RECT German showed structural differences with respect to factorial validity underpinning the need of further validation studies.
AIM:Virtual patients (VPs) are a one-of-a-kind e-learning resource, fostering clinical reasoning skills through clinical case examples. The combination with face-to-face teaching is important for their successful integration, which is referred to as "blended learning". So far little is known about the use of VPs in the field of continuing medical education and residency training. The pilot study presented here inquired the application of VPs in the framework of a pediatric residency revision course.METHODS:Around 200 participants of a pediatric nephology lecture ('nephrotic and nephritic syndrome in children') were offered two VPs as a wrap-up session at the revision course of the German Society for Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ) 2009 in Heidelberg, Germany. Using a web-based survey form, different aspects were evaluated concerning the learning experiences with VPs, the combination with the lecture, and the use of VPs for residency training in general.RESULTS:N=40 evaluable survey forms were returned (approximately 21%). The return rate was impaired by a technical problem with the local Wi-Fi firewall. The participants perceived the work-up of the VPs as a worthwhile learning experience, with proper preparation for diagnosing and treating real patients with similar complaints. Case presentations, interactivity, and locally and timely independent repetitive practices were, in particular, pointed out. On being asked about the use of VPs in general for residency training, there was a distinct demand for more such offers.CONCLUSION:VPs may reasonably complement existing learning activities in residency training.
The first issue of a new volume, which is the 32 of our Journal for Medical Education, is a good opportunity to take a look on what we have achieved during the last year, and what lies ahead of us as there are some innovations coming up that document the development of our journal. First of all some data: We published 35 articles in 2014. A good half of them (16) are research articles, almost a third are project reports (11), the remaining ones are reviews (1), position papers (3), and comments (4). These numbers illustrate that our journal lives up to its self-declared mission i.e. to promote the scientific discourse within the entire domain of education and professional development in medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine as well as in the health professions overall. However, there is still room for improvement. From an editorial perspective we would wish to havemore review articles since we consider the integration of insights from individual studies of utmost importance as these become increasingly difficult to keep track of in many domains. That we are also on the right track for our readers is documented by the growing access of our sites: Both on our “home” platformGMS [http://www.egms.de/dynamic/ en/index.htm] and on PubMedwhere our articles are also available as full text we enjoy growing popularity (see Figure 1). In 2014 we counted almost 100.000 hits on GMS. On PubMed where our journal is listed only since 2011 we still had almost 50.000 hits. Both measures are corrected for automated queries. Although we are really excited about this response we still want to develop the proliferation of our journal without making any compromises in terms of the quality of our articles. To achieve this and to come closer to the Impact Factor as an important milestone for our journal, we introduce three innovations that we hope will generate positive impetus for this development:
Background: Collaboration as a key qualification in medical education and everyday routine in clinical care can substantially contribute to improving patient safety. Internal collaboration scripts are conceptualized as organized - yet adaptive – knowledge that can be used in specific situations in professional everyday life. This study examines the level of internalization of collaboration scripts in medicine. Internalization is understood as fast retrieval of script information.Goal: The goals of the current study were the assessment of collaborative information, which is part of collaboration scripts, and the development of a methodology for measuring the level of internalization of collaboration scripts in medicine. Method: For the contrastive comparison of internal collaboration scripts, 20 collaborative novices (medical students in their final year) and 20 collaborative experts (physicians with specialist degrees in internal medicine or anesthesiology) were included in the study. Eight typical medical collaborative situations as shown on a photo or video were presented to the participants for five seconds each. Afterwards, the participants were asked to describe what they saw on the photo or video. Based on the answers, the amount of information belonging to a collaboration script (script-information) was determined and the time each participant needed for answering was measured. In order to measure the level of internalization, script-information per recall time was calculated.Results: As expected, collaborative experts stated significantly more script-information than collaborative novices. As well, collaborative experts showed a significantly higher level of internalization.Conclusions: Based on the findings of this research, we conclude that our instrument can discriminate between collaboration novices and experts. It therefore can be used to analyze measures to foster subject-specific competency in medical education.
Objectives: The point of departure for the present work is the observation that, in comparison with Anglo-American countries or the Netherlands, Germany was responsible for only a marginal number of international publications in the field of medical education research before 2004. Recent years, however, have seen an increase in the importance of medical education research in Germany. The objective of this article is to evaluate the extent to which this trend can be substantiated by increased German publishing activity since the year 2004 in international, English-language journals in the subject area of “medical education research”. Methods: In the framework of a literature and content analysis, German-author articles from the years 2004 to 2013 in six international, English-language medical education research journals were evaluated. In order to obtain an overview of German research activity in this area, all project and original works with German first and last authors were identified and subjected to a more in-depth content analysis. Results: In total, 10,055 articles were examined. The evaluation shows that between the years 2004 and 2013 179 articles (of which 145 are project or original works) by German authors were published in the journals examined. Fluctuations over the course of time were evidenced. The project and original works are primarily cross-sectional studies (27.8%) and randomised control studies (25.6%) on the subject of “teaching and learning methods” (43.6%). Conclusions: In comparison with the years 2004-2008, a significant rise can be seen in the number of publications by German education researchers in international journals since the year 2009.
INTRODUCTION:The importance of research, as promoted by the CanMEDS framework, is widely acknowledged. Many medical students in Germany work on a research project as part of their doctoral thesis whilst still going to medical school. However, a significant amount of projects are abandoned unfinished, which leads to substantial wastage of resources. One reason for this is an information deficit concerning undergraduate research projects.PROJECT DESCRIPTION:To counteract this, we introduced an annual event at LMU Munich called DoktaMed with more than 600 visitors each year. It combines medical convention and research fair including keynote lectures, workshops and poster sessions as well as an exhibition of research groups and institutes. DoktaMed is a peer-to-peer event organized by a team of 40 students.RESULTS:A needs analysis before its implementation underlined the information deficit as a possible cause for the high rate of abandoned projects. In the annual evaluation, visitors of DoktaMed rate the event with an average grade of 2.1 on a six-level Likert scale (n=558, SD=1.06, with "1=very good", "6=poor"). They stated to now feel better informed about the topic and regarded visiting DoktaMed as a worthwhile investment of time.DISCUSSION:Students are generally satisfied with the event and feel better informed after visiting DoktaMed. However, many students never visit DoktaMed for various reasons. A possible improvement would be to present a greater number of clinical studies in addition to the laboratory work that DoktaMed focuses on now.CONCLUSION:Evaluation after six years of DoktaMed is very promising. Visitors seem to be better informed. Nevertheless there is space for improvement in order to get more students and more faculty members involved. More studies are needed to assess long-term effects.
BACKGROUND:By means of the revision of the Medical Licensure Act for Physicians (ÄAppO) in 2009, undergraduate palliative care education (UPCE) was incorporated as a mandatory cross sectional examination subject (QB13) in medical education in Germany. Its implementation still constitutes a major challenge for German medical faculties. There is a discrepancy between limited university resources and limited patient availabilities and high numbers of medical students. Apart from teaching theoretical knowledge and skills, palliative care education is faced with the particular challenge of imparting a professional and adequate attitude towards incurably ill and dying patients and their relatives.PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Against this background, an evidence-based longitudinal UPCE curriculum was systematically developed following Kern's Cycle [1] and partly implemented and evaluated by the students participating in the pilot project. Innovative teaching methods (virtual standardised/simulated patient contacts, e-learning courses, interdisciplinary and interprofessional collaborative teaching, and group sessions for reflective self-development) aim at teaching palliative care-related core competencies within the clinical context and on an interdisciplinary and interprofessional basis.RESULTS:After almost five years of development and evaluation, the UPCE curriculum comprises 60 teaching units and is being fully implemented and taught for the first time in the winter semester 2014/15. The previous pilot phases were successfully concluded. To date, the pilot phases (n=26), the subproject "E-learning in palliative care" (n=518) and the blended-learning elective course "Communication with dying patients" (n=12) have been successfully evaluated.CONCLUSION:All conducted development steps and all developed programmes are available for other palliative care educators (Open Access). The integrated teaching formats and methods (video, e-learning module, interprofessional education, group sessions for reflexive self-development) and their evaluations are intended to make a contribution to an evidence-based development of palliative care curricula in Germany.
Objective: Already during their studies, medical students should intensively train their clinical thinking and practice skills, enhancing their clinical expertise in theoretical and practical terms. Methods: Based on the findings of educational research, a new curriculum for clinical training was developed at Duesseldorf University, focussing on workplace-based teaching, learning and assessment. Results: For students in their 3rd, 4th and 5th year of study, our curriculum is based on learning with patient complaint items in regard to multidisciplinary areas of outpatient and inpatient care. For this educational format, 123 complaint items were defined and their compatibility with diseases from various disciplines was tested. Based on the complaint of a specific case, students locate the underlying disease pattern, the differential diagnostic and therapeutical procedures and thereby deepen the required knowledge in the basic subjects. Study books have been created by the clinical departments to support this process. Learning is integrated in competence-oriented and workplace-based learning and assessment, offering a close-knit contact between students and doctors. Conclusion: The concept allows the integration of theory into practice and the integration of knowledge from the basic, clinical-theoretical and clinical subjects into clinical thinking and action.
Aim: Performing vaccine and travel consultations is a crucial aspect of the daily routine in general medicine. However, medical education does not provide adequately and structured training for this future task of medical students. While existing courses mainly focus on theoretical aspects, we developed a course aiming to foster practical experience in performing vaccine and travel consultations. Project report: The course was implemented in the simulation clinic at the University of Munich in the summer 2011 semester using role-plays in a simulation-based learning environment. The course represents different disciplines involved in vaccine and travel medicine. Students’ learning is supported through active engagement in planning and conducting consultations of patients.Discussion and Summary: The course was implemented successfully and students’ acceptance was high. However, there is a need for structured teaching of theoretical basics in vaccine and travel medicine earlier in medical curriculum. The insights gained through our course are used for the development of the structured longitudinal curriculum “vaccine medicine”.
This August “Science” published a much-noticed paper by a collective of authors demonstrating that the results of many studies in the field of psychology could not be replicated [1]. With great methodological effort the Open Science Collaboration that incorporates 270 scientists from all over the world selected 100 up-to-date experimental studies from three top-ranked psychological journals in order to assign them for replication to designated and qualified research groups. In these replication studiesmaterial and instruments from the original studies were used and the authors of these studies were also consulted during the preparation phase. The results are sobering: While 97% of the original studies reported significant results only 36% of the replication studies did so. Furthermore, the reported effect sizes of the replication studies were only half as large as the original ones and even when the original data and the replicated data were analyzed conjointly only 68% of the results turned out to be significant. What do these findings mean? First of all the problem itself is known for a long time and is not restricted to psychology. Quite recently, wewitnessed a sometimes heated discussion circled around the question whether toomuch “research waste” is produced in the biomedical sciences [2]. As a matter of fact, the replication of many studies in this field fails, even if they are published in top-ranked journals. It is estimated that the proportion of non-replicable studies within the biomedical domain is actually larger than in psychology (approximately 75–90%) and even frequently cited studies make no exception [3].
