Literature DB >> 23848374

A review of longitudinal community and hospital placements in medical education: BEME Guide No. 26.

J E Thistlethwaite1, Emma Bartle, Amy Ai Ling Chong, Marie-Louise Dick, David King, Sarah Mahoney, Tracey Papinczak, George Tucker.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, clinical learning for medical students consists of short-term and opportunistic encounters with primarily acute-care patients, supervised by an array of clinician preceptors. In response to educational concerns, some medical schools have developed longitudinal placements rather than short-term rotations. Many of these longitudinal placements are also integrated across the core clinical disciplines, are commonly termed longitudinal integrated clerkships (LICs) and often situated in rural locations. This review aimed to explore, analyse and synthesise evidence relating to the effectiveness of longitudinal placements, for medical students in particular to determine which aspects are most critical to successful outcomes.
METHOD: Extensive search of the literature resulted in 1679 papers and abstracts being considered, with 53 papers ultimately being included for review. The review group coded these 53 papers according to standard BEME review guidelines. Specific information extracted included: data relating to effectiveness, the location of the study, number of students involved, format, length and description of placement, the learning outcomes, research design, the impact level for evaluation and the main evaluation methods and findings. We applied a realist approach to consider what works well for whom and under what circumstances.
FINDINGS: The early LICs were all community-based immersion programs, situated in general practice and predominantly in rural settings. More recent LIC innovations were situated in tertiary-level specialist ambulatory care in urban settings. Not all placements were integrated across medical disciplines but were longitudinal in relation to location, patient base and/or supervision. Twenty-four papers focussed on one of four programs from different viewpoints. Most evaluations were student opinion (survey, interview, focus group) and/or student assessment results. Placements varied from one half day per week for six months through to full time immersion for more than 12 months. The predominant mechanism relating to factors influencing effectiveness was continuity of one or more of: patient care, supervision and mentorship, peer group and location. The success of LICs and participation satisfaction depended on the preparation of both students and clinical supervisors, and the level of support each received from their academic institutions.
CONCLUSION: Longitudinal placements, including longitudinal integrated placements, are gaining in popularity as an alternative to traditional block rotations. Although relatively few established LICs currently exist, medical schools may look for ways to incorporate some of the principles of LICs more generally in their clinical education programmes. Further research is required to ascertain the optimum length of time for placements depending on the defined learning outcomes and timing within the programme, which students are most likely to benefit and the effects of context such as location and type of integration.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23848374     DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2013.806981

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Teach        ISSN: 0142-159X            Impact factor:   3.650


  30 in total

1.  Comparing Medical Students' and Preceptors' Views of a Longitudinal Preclerkship Family Medicine Course.

Authors:  Karen Willoughby; Charo Rodríguez; Miriam Boillat; Marion Dove; Peter Nugus; Yvonne Steinert; Leonora Lalla
Journal:  PRiMER       Date:  2018-02-26

2.  Longitudinal placements for trainee pharmacists: Learning whilst improving patient care.

Authors:  Hannah Kinsey; Jeremy Sokhi; Maria Christou; David Wright
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2021-11-19       Impact factor: 7.647

3.  Challenges of synthesizing medical education research.

Authors:  Rachel H Ellaway
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 8.775

4.  Exploring provision of Innovative Community Education Placements (ICEPs) for junior doctors in training: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Ann Griffin; Melvyn M Jones; Nada Khan; Sophie Park; Joe Rosenthal; Vasiliki Chrysikou
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-02-09       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Clinical realism: a new literary genre and a potential tool for encouraging empathy in medical students.

Authors:  Paula McDonald; Katy Ashton; Rachel Barratt; Simon Doyle; Dorrie Imeson; Amos Meir; Gregoire Risser
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2015-07-03       Impact factor: 2.463

Review 6.  Impact of family medicine clerkships in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review.

Authors:  Eralda Turkeshi; Nele R Michels; Kristin Hendrickx; Roy Remmen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-08-04       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  The reliability and validity of a portfolio designed as a programmatic assessment of performance in an integrated clinical placement.

Authors:  Chris Roberts; Narelle Shadbolt; Tyler Clark; Phillip Simpson
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2014-09-20       Impact factor: 2.463

8.  Exploring the transition of undergraduate medical students into a clinical clerkship using organizational socialization theory.

Authors:  Anique E Atherley; Ian R Hambleton; Nigel Unwin; Colette George; Paula M Lashley; Charles G Taylor
Journal:  Perspect Med Educ       Date:  2016-04

Review 9.  Student learning in interprofessional practice-based environments: what does theory say?

Authors:  Chris Roberts; Koshila Kumar
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2015-11-26       Impact factor: 2.463

10.  Towards tailored teaching: using participatory action research to enhance the learning experience of Longitudinal Integrated Clerkship students in a South African rural district hospital.

Authors:  Klaus B von Pressentin; Firdouza Waggie; Hoffie Conradie
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2016-03-08       Impact factor: 2.463

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.