The clinical teacher最新文献

Background: Communication between clinicians, patients, and families is a core component of medical care that requires deliberate practice and feedback to improve. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic caused a sudden transformation in communication practices because of new physical distancing requirements, necessitating physicians to communicate bad news via telephone and video-mediated communication (VMC). This study investigated students' experience with a simulation-based communications training for having difficult conversations using VMC.

Methods: Thirty-eight fourth-year medical students preparing for their surgical residency participated in a simulated scenario where students discussed a new COVID-19 diagnosis with a standardised family member (SFM) of a sick patient via VMC. Learners were introduced to an established communications model (SPIKES) by an educational video. After the simulation, SFM and course facilitators guided a debrief and provided feedback. Learners completed surveys evaluating reactions to the training, preparedness to deliver bad news, and attitudes about telehealth.

Results: Twenty-three students completed evaluation surveys (response rate=61%). Few students had prior formal training (17%) or experience communicating bad news using telehealth (13%). Most respondents rated the session beneficial (96%) and felt they could express empathy using the VMC format (83%). However, only 57% felt ready to deliver bad news independently after the training and 52% reported it was more difficult to communicate without physical presence. Comments highlighted the need for additional practice.

Conclusion: This pilot study demonstrated the value and feasibility of teaching medical students to break bad news using VMC as well as demonstrating the need for additional training.

Background: Heterogeneous access to clinical learning opportunities and inconsistency in teaching is a common source of dissatisfaction among medical students. This was exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic, with limited exposure to patients for clinical teaching.

Methods: We conducted a proof-of-concept study at a London teaching hospital using mixed reality (MR) technology (HoloLens2™) to deliver a remote access teaching ward round.

Results: Students unanimously agreed that use of this technology was enjoyable and provided teaching that was otherwise inaccessible. The majority of participants gave positive feedback on the MR (holographic) content used (n = 8 out of 11) and agreed they could interact with and have their questions answered by the clinician leading the ward round (n = 9). Quantitative and free text feedback from students, patients and faculty members demonstrated that this is a feasible, acceptable and effective method for delivery of clinical education.

Discussion: We have used this technology in a novel way to transform the delivery of medical education and enable consistent access to high-quality teaching. This can now be integrated across the curriculum and will include remote access to specialist clinics and surgery. A library of bespoke MR educational resources will be created for future generations of medical students and doctors to use on an international scale.

Background: In response to high rates of burnout among trainees, educators in obstetrics and gynaecology introduced a six-session wellness curriculum that improved professional fulfilment and resident burnout in participants with greater attendance. The implementation of the curriculum varied based on local variables and contextual factors.

Objective: To analyse the reactions of participants and curriculum leaders across the diverse settings of the pilot experience in order to identify the best practices for implementation of a wellness curriculum.

Methods: Twenty-five US OBGYN residency programmes completed the curriculum in the 2017-2018 academic year. OBGYN residents in all the years of training participated. Faculty members and fellows were workshop facilitators and course leaders. All participants completed post-intervention surveys. A qualitative, descriptive thematic analysis explored free-text responses from residents and workshop facilitators.

Results: Among 592 eligible resident participants, 387 (65%) responded to the post-intervention survey. Workshop facilitators submitted 65 surveys (47% response) on curriculum elements, rating the activities as 'good' or 'excellent' in 90.8% of cases. Qualitative analysis of workshop facilitators' and resident comments pointed to three themes, namely disagreement about the purpose of the curriculum, the social value of the curriculum in the residency programme and the need to open a broader discussion and take action to address structural barriers to wellness.

Conclusions: Residents and faculty members involved in a wellness curriculum pilot had polarised reactions. While participants found value in learning skills and connecting to colleagues, efforts to promote wellness skills should be accompanied by communication and action to address drivers of burnout.