ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: in 2008, the British Geriatrics Society (BGS) developed the Recommended Undergraduate Curriculum in Geriatric Medicine. This was subsequently mapped to the second edition of Tomorrows' Doctors (TD2, 2003). Following the publication of the third edition of Tomorrow's Doctors in 2009 (TD3), the mapping exercise was repeated to verify the extent to which the updated General Medical Council recommendations supported teaching in ageing and geriatric medicine. METHOD: we analysed TD3 and identified 48 aspects of its general guidance that were relevant to the teaching of medicine for older people. We then mapped these to the 2009 BGS curriculum. RESULTS: the BGS curriculum was supported in full by TD3. However, learning outcomes relating to the interpretation and conduct of research in TD3 had no corresponding outcomes in the BGS curriculum. CONCLUSION: the BGS curriculum for medical undergraduates continues to provide a specific and complete list of learning objectives, all of which could help to operationalise the general statements made in TD3 with relation to ageing and geriatric medicine. Learning outcomes in research in frail older patients have been added following this mapping exercise.
Subject(s)
Curriculum/trends , Education, Medical, Continuing , Education, Medical, Undergraduate , Geriatrics , Teaching , Education, Medical, Continuing/methods , Education, Medical, Continuing/standards , Education, Medical, Undergraduate/methods , Education, Medical, Undergraduate/standards , Educational Measurement , Geriatrics/education , Humans , Needs Assessment , Quality Improvement , Teaching/standards , Teaching/trendsABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: in 2008, a UK national survey of undergraduate teaching about ageing and geriatric medicine identified deficiencies, including failure to adequately teach about elder abuse, pressure ulcers and bio- and social gerontology. We repeated the survey in 2013 to consider whether the situation had improved. METHOD: the deans of all 31 UK medical schools were invited to nominate a respondent with an overview of their undergraduate curriculum. Nominees were invited by email and letter to complete an online questionnaire quantifying topics taught, type of teaching and assessment undertaken, and the amount of time spent on teaching. RESULTS: one school only taught pre-clinical medicine and declined to participate. Of the 30 remaining schools, 20 responded and 19 provided analysable data. The majority of the schools (95-100%) provided teaching in delirium, dementia, stroke, falls, osteoporosis, extra-pyramidal disorders, polypharmacy, incontinence, ethics and mental capacity. Only 68% of the schools taught about elder abuse. Thirty-seven per cent taught a recognised classification of the domains of health used in Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). The median (range) total time spent on teaching in ageing and geriatric medicine was 55.5 (26-192) h. There was less reliance on informal teaching and improved assessment:teaching ratios compared with the 2008 survey. CONCLUSIONS: there was an improvement in teaching and assessment of learning outcomes in ageing and geriatric medicine for UK undergraduates between 2008 and 2013. However, further work is needed to increase the amount of teaching time devoted to ageing and to improve teaching around elder abuse and the domains of health used in CGA.
Subject(s)
Aging , Education, Medical, Undergraduate , Geriatrics/education , Schools, Medical , Teaching/methods , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Curriculum , Education, Medical, Undergraduate/standards , Elder Abuse , Geriatric Assessment , Geriatrics/standards , Humans , Quality Improvement , Schools, Medical/standards , Surveys and Questionnaires , Teaching/standards , Time Factors , United KingdomABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A thorough understanding of the literature generated from research in care homes is required to support evidence-based commissioning and delivery of healthcare. So far this research has not been compiled or described. We set out to describe the extent of the evidence base derived from randomized controlled trials conducted in care homes. METHODS: A systematic mapping review was conducted of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in care homes. Medline was searched for "Nursing Home", "Residential Facilities" and "Homes for the Aged"; CINAHL for "nursing homes", "residential facilities" and "skilled nursing facilities"; AMED for "Nursing homes", "Long term care", "Residential facilities" and "Randomized controlled trial"; and BNI for "Nursing Homes", "Residential Care" and "Long-term care". Articles were classified against a keywording strategy describing: year and country of publication; randomization, stratification and blinding methodology; target of intervention; intervention and control treatments; number of subjects and/or clusters; outcome measures; and results. RESULTS: 3226 abstracts were identified and 291 articles reviewed in full. Most were recent (median age 6 years) and from the United States. A wide range of targets and interventions were identified. Studies were mostly functional (44 behaviour, 20 prescribing and 20 malnutrition studies) rather than disease-based. Over a quarter focussed on mental health. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to collate data from all RCTs conducted in care homes and represents an important resource for those providing and commissioning healthcare for this sector. The evidence-base is rapidly developing. Several areas - influenza, falls, mobility, fractures, osteoporosis - are appropriate for systematic review. For other topics, researchers need to focus on outcome measures that can be compared and collated.
