Pain medicine content, teaching and assessment in medical school curricula in Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: The objective of pain medicine education is to provide medical students with opportunities to develop their knowledge, skills and professional attitudes that will lead to their becoming safe, capable, and compassionate medical practitioners who are able to meet the healthcare needs of persons in pain. This study was undertaken to identify and describe the delivery of pain medicine education at medical schools in Australia and New Zealand. METHOD: All 23 medical schools in Australia and New Zealand in 2016 were included in this study. A structured curriculum audit tool was used to obtain information on pain medicine curricula including content, delivery, teaching and assessment methods. RESULTS: Nineteen medical schools (83%) completed the curriculum audit. Neurophysiology, clinical assessment, analgesia use and multidimensional aspects of pain medicine were covered by most medical schools. Specific learning objectives for pain medicine were not identified by 42% of medical schools. One medical school offered a dedicated pain medicine module delivered over 1 week. Pain medicine teaching was delivered at all schools by a number of different departments throughout the curriculum. Interprofessional learning (IPL) in the context of pain medicine education was not specified by any of the medical schools. The mean time allocated for pain medicine teaching over the entire medical course was just under 20 h. The objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) was used by 32% of schools to assess knowledge and skills in pain medicine. 16% of schools were unsure of whether any assessment of pain medicine education took place. CONCLUSION: This descriptive study provides important baseline information for pain medicine education at medical schools in Australia and New Zealand. Medical schools do not have well-documented or comprehensive pain curricula that are delivered and assessed using pedagogically-sound approaches considering the complexity of the topic, the prevalence and public health burden of pain.

Does an incremental approach to implementing programmatic assessment work? Reflections on the change process.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. In 2017, the School of Medicine (Fremantle) of the University of Notre Dame Australia began moving towards programmatic assessment. Programmatic assessment seeks to achieve robust assessment validity through the assessment of a large number of low-stakes activities or data points. These data points exemplify assessment as learning by valuing feedback, discussion and reflection, ultimately leading to deeper student engagement without compromising credible decision-making on student progress. The School adopted an incremental approach to implementing programmatic assessment that included first establishing data-informed mentoring, and then activating a continuous assessment program that contributed simultaneously to student learning and School decision-making. Action research helped understand the impact of the initiative. Re-engineering continuous assessment as an incremental step towards programmatic assessment proved to be problematic. Some ideas are proposed to draw the strands of programmatic assessment together that may be useful for others to chart a more fruitful path.

Exploring assessment of medical students' competencies in pain medicine-A review.

INTRODUCTION: Considering the continuing high prevalence and public health burden of pain, it is critical that medical students are equipped with competencies in the field of pain medicine. Robust assessment of student expertise is integral for effective implementation of competency-based medical education. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to describe the literature regarding methods for assessing pain medicine competencies in medical students. METHOD: PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, ERIC, and Google Scholar, and BEME data bases were searched for empirical studies primarily focusing on assessment of any domain of pain medicine competencies in medical students published between January 1997 and December 2016. RESULTS: A total of 41 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most assessments were performed for low-stakes summative purposes and did not reflect contemporary theories of assessment. Assessments were predominantly undertaken using written tests or clinical simulation methods. The most common pain medicine education topics assessed were pain pharmacology and the management of cancer and low-back pain. Most studies focussed on assessment of cognitive levels of learning as opposed to more challenging domains of demonstrating skills and attitudes or developing and implementing pain management plans. CONCLUSION: This review highlights the need for more robust assessment tools that effectively measure the abilities of medical students to integrate pain-related competencies into clinical practice. A Pain Medicine Assessment Framework has been developed to encourage systematic planning of pain medicine assessment at medical schools internationally and to promote continuous multidimensional assessments in a variety of clinical contexts based on well-defined pain medicine competencies.

Systematic Review of Pain Medicine Content, Teaching, and Assessment in Medical School Curricula Internationally.

INTRODUCTION: Pain management is a major health care challenge in terms of the significant prevalence of pain and the negative consequences of poor management. Consequently, there have been international calls to improve pain medicine education for medical students. This systematic review examines the literature on pain medicine education at medical schools internationally, with a particular interest in studies that make reference to: a defined pain medicine curriculum, specific pain medicine learning objectives, dedicated pain education modules, core pain topics, medical specialties that teach pain medicine, elective study opportunities, hours allocated to teaching pain medicine during the curriculum, the status of pain medicine in the curriculum (compulsory or optional), as well as teaching, learning, and assessment methods. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken of relevant studies on pain medicine education for medical students published between January 1987 and May 2018 using PubMed, Medline, Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and Google Scholar, and Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) data bases. RESULTS: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Evaluation of pain medicine curricula has been undertaken at 383 medical schools in Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America (USA), Canada, the United Kingdom (UK), and Europe. Pain medicine was mostly incorporated into medical courses such as anaesthesia or pharmacology, rather than presented as a dedicated pain medicine module. Ninety-six percent of medical schools in the UK and USA, and nearly 80% of medical schools in Europe had no compulsory dedicated teaching in pain medicine. On average, the median number of hours of pain content in the entire curriculum was 20 in Canada (2009), 20 in Australia and New Zealand (2018), 13 in the UK (2011), 12 in Europe (2012/2013), and 11 in the USA (2009). Neurophysiology and pharmacology pain topics were given priority by medical schools in all countries. Lectures, seminars, and case-based instruction were the teaching methods most commonly employed. When it was undertaken, medical schools mostly assessed student competency in pain medicine using written examinations rather than clinical assessments. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review has revealed that pain medicine education at medical schools internationally does not adequately respond to societal needs in terms of the prevalence and public health impact of inadequately managed pain.