Future doctors' perspectives on health professionals' responsibility regarding nutrition care and why doctors should learn about nutrition: A qualitative study.

Background: Improved dietary and nutrition behavior may help reduce the occurrence of noncommunicable diseases which have become global public health emergencies in recent times. However, doctors do not readily provide nutrition counseling to their patients. We explored medical students' perspectives on health professionals' nutrition care responsibility, and why doctors should learn about nutrition and provide nutrition care in the general practice setting. Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted among 23 undergraduate clinical level medical students (referred to as future doctors). All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim with data analysis following a comparative, coding, and thematic process. Results: Future doctors were of the view that all health professionals who come into contact with patients in the general practice setting are responsible for the provision of nutrition care to patients. Next to nutritionists/dieticians, future doctors felt doctors should be more concerned with the nutrition of their patients than any other health-care professionals in the general practice setting. Reasons why doctors should be more concerned about nutrition were as follows: patients having regular contacts with the doctor; doctors being the first point of contact; patients having more trust in the doctors' advice; helping to meet the holistic approach to patient care; and the fact that nutrition plays an important role in health outcomes of the patient. Discussion: Future doctors perceived all health professionals to be responsible for nutrition care and underscored the need for doctors to learn about nutrition and to be concerned about the nutrition of their patients.

Realist synthesis of educational interventions to improve nutrition care competencies and delivery by doctors and other healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVE: To determine what, how, for whom, why, and in what circumstances educational interventions improve the delivery of nutrition care by doctors and other healthcare professionals work. DESIGN: Realist synthesis following a published protocol and reported following Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) guidelines. A multidisciplinary team searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, EMBASE, PsyINFO, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Science Direct for published and unpublished (grey) literature. The team identified studies with varied designs; appraised their ability to answer the review question; identified relationships between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes (CMOs); and entered them into a spreadsheet configured for the purpose. The final synthesis identified commonalities across CMO configurations. RESULTS: Over half of the 46 studies from which we extracted data originated from the USA. Interventions that improved the delivery of nutrition care improved skills and attitudes rather than just knowledge; provided opportunities for superiors to model nutrition care; removed barriers to nutrition care in health systems; provided participants with local, practically relevant tools and messages; and incorporated non-traditional, innovative teaching strategies. Operating in contexts where student and qualified healthcare professionals provided nutrition care in developed and developing countries, these interventions yielded health outcomes by triggering a range of mechanisms, which included feeling competent, feeling confident and comfortable, having greater self-efficacy, being less inhibited by barriers in healthcare systems and feeling that nutrition care was accepted and recognised. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show how important it is to move education for nutrition care beyond the simple acquisition of knowledge. They show how educational interventions embedded within systems of healthcare can improve patients' health by helping health students and professionals to appreciate the importance of delivering nutrition care and feel competent to deliver it.

The CanMEDS framework: relevant but not quite the whole story.

BACKGROUND: Despite acknowledgement that the Canadian Medical Educational Directives for Specialists (CanMEDS) framework covers the relevant competencies of physicians, many educators and medical professionals struggle to translate the CanMEDS roles into comprehensive training programmes for specific specialties. AIM: To gain insight into the applicability of the CanMEDS framework to guide the design of educational programmes for specific specialties by exploring stakeholders' perceptions of specialty specific competencies and examining differences between those competencies and the CanMEDS framework. METHODS: This case study is a sequel to a study among ObsGyn specialists. It explores the perspectives of patients, midwives, nurses, general practitioners, and hospital boards on gynaecological competencies and compares these with the CanMEDS framework. RESULTS: Clinical expertise, reflective practice, collaboration, a holistic view, and involvement in practice management were perceived to be important competencies for gynaecological practice. Although all the competencies were covered by the CanMEDS framework, there were some mismatches between stakeholders' perceptions of the importance of some competencies and their position in the framework. CONCLUSION: The CanMEDS framework appears to offer relevant building blocks for specialty specific postgraduate training, which should be combined with the results of an exploration of specialty specific competencies to arrive at a postgraduate curriculum that is in alignment with professional practice.

Pre-clinical patient contacts and the application of biomedical and clinical knowledge.

CONTEXT: Real-patient contacts in problem-based undergraduate medical education are promoted as a good way to introduce biomedical and (in)formal clinical knowledge early in the curriculum and thereby to foster the development of coherent and integrated knowledge networks. There are concerns, however, that such contacts may cause students to focus on clinical knowledge to the neglect of biomedical knowledge, and that group discussions may be dominated by teachers. We examined these concerns by addressing the following questions in the context of group sessions in which students prepare for and report on real-patient contacts. To what extent are biomedical and (in)formal clinical knowledge addressed? To what extent are these knowledge types addressed by students or tutors? Are connections made between biomedical and clinical knowledge? METHODS: We videotaped and transcribed six preparation and six reporting group sessions (two preparation and two reporting phases for each of three groups) held with students in Year 3 of the problem-based curriculum at Maastricht University. During this year, real patients rather than paper patients are used. Qualitative analysis software was used to code propositions in the transcriptions in order to identify different kinds of knowledge and different functions of biomedical knowledge. RESULTS: Formal clinical knowledge was the subject of 40.7% and 34.8% of propositions during the preparation and reporting phases, respectively. The corresponding percentages for biomedical knowledge were 15.0% and 28.0%. Tutors accounted for 63.4% of propositions during the preparation phase, and students for 80.1% during the reporting phase. Nearly all biomedical knowledge was related to clinical knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that pre-clinical patient encounters can stimulate students to pay attention to both clinical and biomedical knowledge and to how they are connected. Tutor dominance was evident only during the preparation phase. Further research is needed to investigate whether pre-clinical patient contacts promote the development of coherent and integrated knowledge networks.

Reducing errors in health care: cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary team training in obstetric emergencies (TOSTI study); a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There are many avoidable deaths in hospitals because the care team is not well attuned. Training in emergency situations is generally followed on an individual basis. In practice, however, hospital patients are treated by a team composed of various disciplines. To prevent communication errors, it is important to focus the training on the team as a whole, rather than on the individual. Team training appears to be important in contributing toward preventing these errors. Obstetrics lends itself to multidisciplinary team training. It is a field in which nurses, midwives, obstetricians and paediatricians work together and where decisions must be made and actions must be carried out under extreme time pressure.It is attractive to belief that multidisciplinary team training will reduce the number of errors in obstetrics. The other side of the medal is that many hospitals are buying expensive patient simulators without proper evaluation of the training method. In the Netherlands many hospitals have 1,000 or less annual deliveries. In our small country it might therefore be more cost-effective to train obstetric teams in medical simulation centres with well trained personnel, high fidelity patient simulators, and well defined training programmes. METHODS/DESIGN: The aim of the present study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary team training in a medical simulation centre in the Netherlands to reduce the number of medical errors in obstetric emergency situations. We plan a multicentre randomised study with the centre as unit of analysis. Obstetric departments will be randomly assigned to receive multidisciplinary team training in a medical simulation centre or to a control arm without any team training.The composite measure of poor perinatal and maternal outcome in the non training group was thought to be 15%, on the basis of data obtained from the National Dutch Perinatal Registry and the guidelines of the Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (NVOG). We anticipated that multidisciplinary team training would reduce this risk to 5%. A sample size of 24 centres with a cluster size of each at least 200 deliveries, each 12 centres per group, was needed for 80% power and a 5% type 1 error probability (two-sided). We assumed an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) value of maximum 0.08.The analysis will be performed according to the intention-to-treat principle and stratified for teaching or non-teaching hospitals.Primary outcome is the number of obstetric complications throughout the first year period after the intervention. If multidisciplinary team training appears to be effective a cost-effective analysis will be performed. DISCUSSION: If multidisciplinary team training appears to be cost-effective, this training should be implemented in extra training for gynaecologists. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol is registered in the clinical trial register number NTR1859.

Analysis of pitfalls encountered by residents in transurethral procedures in master-apprentice type of training.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Today's simulators are frequently limited in their possibilities to train all aspects of endourological procedures. It is therefore indicated to first make an inventory of training needs before (re)developing simulators. This study examined pitfalls encountered by residents in real-time transurethral procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: First, difficulties that residents encounter in transurethral procedures (transurethral resection of the bladder tumor [TURBT], transurethral resection of the prostate [TURP], ureterorenoscopy [URS]) were identified by asking urologists and residents to complete an open questionnaire. Based on their answers a list of pitfalls was designed and tested in 28 pilot observations. Then, two raters (interrater agreement 0.72, 0.70, and 0.75 for TURBT, TURP, and URS, respectively) categorized all observed procedure-related interactions between residents and supervisors in 80 procedures as (1) (type of ) pitfall or (2) no pitfall. RESULTS: Pitfalls most frequently encountered were as follows: (1) planning/anticipation on new situations (median 27.3%, 29.3%, and 31.8% of total pitfalls in TURBT, TURP, and URS, respectively); (2) handling of instruments (11.5%, 10.6%, and 20.0% for TURBT, TURP, and URS); (3) irrigation management for TURBT (7.7%), depth of resection for TURP (8.9%), and use of X-ray for URS (13.3%). CONCLUSION: Designers of endourological simulators should include possibilities to train planning/anticipation on new situations, handling of instruments in all transurethral procedures, and irrigation management in TURBT, depth of resection in TURP, and timing usage of X-ray in URS.

How useful and realistic is the uro trainer for training transurethral prostate and bladder tumor resection procedures?

PURPOSE: We evaluated the face and content validity (novice and expert opinions of realism and usefulness) of the Uro Trainer (Karl Storz GmbH, Tuttlingen, Germany), a simulator for transurethral resection procedures, to ascertain whether it is justifiable to continue the validation process by performing prospective experimental studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2006 and 2008, 104 urologists and urology residents performed a transurethral bladder tumor resection and/or transurethral prostate resection procedure on the Uro Trainer, and rated simulator usefulness and realism on a 10-point scale (1-not at all useful/realistic/poor, 10-very useful/realistic/excellent). Participants were classified as experts (more than 50 procedures performed) or novices (50 or fewer procedures performed). Because the literature offered no guidelines for interpreting our data, we used criteria from other studies to interpret the results. RESULTS: A total of 161 questionnaires were analyzed from 97 (21% experts, 79% novices) and 64 (30% experts, 70% novices) participants who performed transurethral prostate resection and transurethral bladder tumor resection procedures, respectively. Mean usefulness, realism and overall scores varied from 5.6 to 8.2 (SD 1.4-2.5). Measured by validity criteria from other studies, Uro Trainer face and content validity was unsatisfactory, with ratings on only 3%, 5% and 8% of the parameters interpreted as positive, moderately acceptable and good, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Measured against criteria from other validation studies, Uro Trainer face and content validity appears to be unsatisfactory. Modification of the simulator seems advisable before further experimental validation studies are initiated. The lack of general guidelines for establishing face and content validity suggests a need for consensus about appropriate methods for evaluating the validity of simulators.

Strengths and weaknesses of simulated and real patients in the teaching of skills to medical students: a review.

The aim of this review was to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the roles of real and simulated patients in undergraduate medical education. The literature was reviewed in relation to four patient roles: real patients as educational "resource" (passive role), real patients as teachers (active role), and simulated patients as educational resource and teachers. Each of the four patient roles was found to have specific advantages and disadvantages from the perspectives of teachers, students, and patients. For example, advantages of real patients as educational resource were patient-centered learning and high patient satisfaction. Disadvantages were their limited availability and the variability in learning experiences among students. Despite the considerable amount of literature we found, many gaps in knowledge about patient roles in medical education remain and should be addressed by future studies.