From niche topic to inclusion in the curriculum - design and evaluation of the elective course "climate change and health".

Objective: At the Medical Faculty of the Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, the elective course "climate change and health" was offered to students in the clinical phase of their medical studies for the first time in the winter semester 2021/22 (any unfilled places were made available to interested students studying other subjects). Despite attracting considerable attention, this topic has not yet been incorporated into the curriculum of medical studies. Our aim was therefore to teach students about climate change and discuss its effects on human health. The students evaluated the elective in terms of various factors relating to knowledge, attitudes and behavior. Project description: The elective focused on the concept of Planetary Health, with an emphasis on the health consequences of climate change, as well as possibilities for action and adaptation in clinical and practical settings. The course took place in three live, online sessions (with inputs, discussion, case studies and work in small groups), as well as online preparation and a final written assignment for which students were asked to reflect on the subject. The standardized teaching evaluation questionnaire (=didactic dimension) of Goethe University was used online to evaluate the elective, whereby the questionnaire was extended to include the measurement of changes in students' agreement with items (dimensions) relating to knowledge, attitudes and behavior (personal behavior and behavior as physicians) before and after the course (pre/post comparison). Results: Students expressed high levels of satisfaction with the course content, the presentation of the course, and the organization of the elective. This was reflected in very good to good overall ratings. The pre/post comparisons further showed a significant, positive shift in agreement ratings in almost all dimensions. The majority of respondents also wanted the topic to be firmly embedded in the medical curriculum. Conclusion: The evaluation shows that with respect to the impact of climate change on human health, the elective course had a clear influence on the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of the students. In view of the relevance of the topic, it is therefore important that this subject is included in medical curricula in the future.

"A real eye opener" - development, implementation and evaluation of a seminar on interprofessional teamwork in GP specialty training.

Introduction: The successful treatment of a multitude of chronic diseases is largely dependent on effective interprofessional collaboration. In Germany, many healthcare employees feel unprepared for the challenges of interprofessional teamwork. Can a seminar designed by an interprofessional team for an interprofessional target group improve mutual understanding and provide the basis for successful interprofessional collaboration? Methodological approach: For the development of the seminar, Kern's model for curriculum development was used, which includes the following six steps: problem identification, needs analysis, goal definition (learning objectives and learning content), educational strategies, implementation and evaluation. The all-day event brought together physiotherapists, pharmacists, medical assistants and doctors undergoing specialist training in family medicine. Representatives of the various professions were recruited through multiple channels (associations, pharmacist societies, alumni-networks, etc.). Practical examples and role-play were used to develop a better understanding of each other's professions and to support goal-oriented and appreciative communication among them. The seminar belongs to the curriculum provided by the Hesse Competence Center for Specialist Training in General Practice and has so far taken place three times. The evaluation was carried out by means of a detailed, self-designed questionnaire with five open and 20 closed questions. The statistical analysis was mainly descriptive (mean value, minimum, maximum and SD). Results: Overall, 29 persons have participated in the workshops (eleven doctors undergoing specialist training, six physiotherapists, six pharmacists, six medical assistants). Overall, the seminar was rated very highly. Individual aspects of the seminar's design, such as relevance and practice-orientation, as well as an assessment of whether the seminar contributed towards increasing participants' ability to collaborate with other professionals, were rated positively. In addition, a pre-post comparison of self-assessed ability to collaborate interprofessionally showed significant improvement. Discussion: This highly interactive one-day seminar design contributed towards improving understanding for other professions and communication skills. In order to achieve a broad-based improvement in interprofessional collaboration over the long term, this or similar concepts should be employed more extensively. Conclusions: The results suggest that participants in interprofessional seminars consider them to improve interprofessional collaboration.

[Structuring and supporting specialist training in general practice: Evaluation of a Hesse-wide mentoring program for doctors]. / Strukturiert und unterstützt durch die Weiterbildung Allgemeinmedizin: Evaluation eines hessenweiten Mentoringprogramms für Ärzte/innen in Weiterbildung Allgemeinmedizin.

INTRODUCTION: Due to the growing shortage of general practitioners (GPs), solutions are being sought to improve the structure and attraction of specialist training in general practice. In 2012, the Competence Center for Specialist Training in General Practice was set up in the federal state of Hesse, Germany, in order to provide a seminar- and mentoring program to complement standard specialist training. The present paper examines whether the mentoring program, which was based on needs assessment, supports doctors in training (DiT) to become specialists in general practice. METHODS: A mixed-methods design was used for the evaluation of the mentoring program. The pilot cohort monitored in this study was surveyed using a guideline-based interview. The cohort consisted of the first cohort of participants in the Specialist Training Academy (n=21), which was divided into two mentoring groups. Responses were evaluated with the help of the MAXQDA 11 program and qualitative content analysis to structure content. Furthermore, all 16 group meetings were assessed by means of evaluation sheets (n=132) and analyzed descriptively using the statistics program SPSS (IBM statistics, Version 20). RESULTS: Of the 21 DiTs of the total sample that took part in the interviews, two-thirds of the surveyed mentees were female (71.4 %). The mentoring and seminar programs encouraged the mentees in their decision for and their identification with specialist training in general practice and helped them overcome any doubts about their choice. The decisive factors in the mentoring process were interacting with like-minded people, discussing organizational questions and having a fixed contact person in case of questions and doubts. The evaluation sheets made it clear that the mentees regarded the mentoring as supportive (99.3 % positive). Compared to the other mentoring group, participants in the one group felt they were better supported by mentoring, found the interaction with other DiTs more helpful, the interaction between mentors and the group exactly right, and the topics they discussed more relevant. CONCLUSION: The provided mentoring program fulfilled the expectations of the DiTs in general practice. Combined with the Specialist Training Academy's seminar program, the two programs complement each other and are an important step towards making specialist training in general practice more attractive.

[jeder-fehler-zaehlt.de: Content of and prospective benefits from a critical incident reporting and learning system (CIRS) for primary care]. / Das hausärztliche Fehlerberichts- und Lernsystem 'jeder-fehler-zaehlt.de' - Berichtsbestand und Nutzungsperspektiven.

Critical incident reporting and learning systems (CIRS) have been recommended as an instrument to promote patient safety for a long time. However, both their scientific value and their actual impact have been disputed. The nationwide German CIRS for primary care has been in operation since September 2004. Incident reports are available online, and the question is how to make use of this large database to promote patient safety. A descriptive analysis of the content was performed, classifying, in particular, types of error and contributing factors. Its usage is presented for the period from 2004 to 2013 where a total of 483 complete reports have been recorded. Their severity ranges from 35.6 % with no tangible harm to patients to 14.6 % with important harm (or errors contributing to mortality). The majority of them (74.2 %) were process errors, compared to 25.8 % knowledge/skills errors. The main areas involved were treatment/medication (54.2 %) and diagnosis/tests (16.4 %). The results of the analysis of the CIRS cannot be used as an epidemiological data source. And yet they will generate hypotheses for further research in the field of patient safety. Moreover, they will enable practice teams to make themselves familiar with and learn from critical incident analysis. In spite of the specific difficulties in ambulatory care, CIRS should be promoted in this sector to enable learning. Participation in CIRS can be increased by enhanced feedback.