P Bradley1, K Postlethwaite. 1. Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Plymouth and Exeter, UK. Paul.bradley@pms.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This paper outlines the considerations to be made when establishing a clinical skills learning facility. CONSIDERATIONS: Establishing a clinical skills learning facility is a complex project with many possible options to be considered. A number of professional groups, undergraduate or postgraduate, may be users. Their collaboration can have benefits for funding, uses and promotion of interprofessional education. Best evidence and educational theory should underpin teaching and learning. The physical environment should be flexible to allow a range of clinical settings to be simulated and to facilitate a range of teaching and learning methods, supported by computing and audio-visual resources. Facilities should be available to encourage self-directed learning. The skills programme should be designed to support the intended learning outcomes and be integrated within the overall curriculum, including within the assessment strategy. Teaching staff may be configured in a number of ways and may be drawn from a variety of backgrounds. Appropriate staff development will be required to ensure consistency and quality of teaching with monitoring and evaluation to assure appropriate standards. Patients can also play a role, not only as passive teaching material, but also as teachers and assessors. Clinical, diagnostic and therapeutic equipment will be required, as will models and manikins. The latter will vary from simple part task trainers to highly sophisticated human patient simulators. Care must be taken when choosing equipment to ensure it matches specified requirements for teaching and learning. CONCLUSION: Detailed planning is required across a number of domains when setting up a clinical skills learning facility.
OBJECTIVE: This paper outlines the considerations to be made when establishing a clinical skills learning facility. CONSIDERATIONS: Establishing a clinical skills learning facility is a complex project with many possible options to be considered. A number of professional groups, undergraduate or postgraduate, may be users. Their collaboration can have benefits for funding, uses and promotion of interprofessional education. Best evidence and educational theory should underpin teaching and learning. The physical environment should be flexible to allow a range of clinical settings to be simulated and to facilitate a range of teaching and learning methods, supported by computing and audio-visual resources. Facilities should be available to encourage self-directed learning. The skills programme should be designed to support the intended learning outcomes and be integrated within the overall curriculum, including within the assessment strategy. Teaching staff may be configured in a number of ways and may be drawn from a variety of backgrounds. Appropriate staff development will be required to ensure consistency and quality of teaching with monitoring and evaluation to assure appropriate standards. Patients can also play a role, not only as passive teaching material, but also as teachers and assessors. Clinical, diagnostic and therapeutic equipment will be required, as will models and manikins. The latter will vary from simple part task trainers to highly sophisticated humanpatient simulators. Care must be taken when choosing equipment to ensure it matches specified requirements for teaching and learning. CONCLUSION: Detailed planning is required across a number of domains when setting up a clinical skills learning facility.
Authors: T Garrood; A Iyer; K Gray; H Prentice; R Bamford; R Jenkin; N Shah; R Gray; B Mearns; J C Ratoff Journal: Clin Med (Lond) Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.659
Authors: Frederike Lund; Jobst-Hendrik Schultz; Imad Maatouk; Markus Krautter; Andreas Möltner; Anne Werner; Peter Weyrich; Jana Jünger; Christoph Nikendei Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-03-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anne Herrmann-Werner; Christoph Nikendei; Katharina Keifenheim; Hans Martin Bosse; Frederike Lund; Robert Wagner; Nora Celebi; Stephan Zipfel; Peter Weyrich Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-09-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Christoph Nikendei; Julia Huber; Jan Stiepak; Daniel Huhn; Jan Lauter; Wolfgang Herzog; Jana Jünger; Markus Krautter Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2014-04-02 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Emily J Hibbert; Tim Lambert; John N Carter; Diana L Learoyd; Stephen Twigg; Stephen Clarke Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 2.463