| Literature DB >> 35346956 |
Roland Koch1, Hannah Fuhr2, Lilian Koifman3, Heidrun Sturm2, Cláudia March3, Luiz Vianna Sobrinho4, Stefanie Joos2, Fabiano Tonaco Borges3.
Abstract
Health systems need medical professionals who can and will work in outpatient settings, such as general practitioner practices or health centres. However, medical students complete only a small portion of their medical training there. Furthermore, this type of training is sometimes seen as inferior to training in academic medical centres and university hospitals. Hence, the healthcare system's demand and the execution of medical curricula do not match. Robust concepts for better alignment of both these parts are lacking. This study aims to (1) describe decentral learning environments in the context of traditional medical curricula and (2) derive ideas for implementing such scenarios further in existing curricula in response to particular medicosocietal needs.This study is designed as qualitative cross-national comparative education research. It comprises three steps: first, two author teams consisting of course managers from Brazil and Germany write a report on change management efforts in their respective faculty. Both teams then compare and comment on the other's report. Emerging similarities and discrepancies are categorised. Third, a cross-national analysis is conducted on the category system.Stakeholders of medical education (medical students, teaching faculty, teachers in decentral learning environments) have differing standards, ideals and goals that are influenced by their own socialisation-prominently, Flexner's view of university hospital training as optimal training. We reiterate that both central and decentral learning environments provide meaningful complementary learning opportunities. Medical students must be prepared to navigate social aspects of learning and accept responsibility for communities. They are uniquely positioned to serve as visionaries and university ambassadors to communities. As such, they can bridge the gap between university hospitals and decentral learning environments. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Entities:
Keywords: health education and promotion; health services research; health systems; qualitative study
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35346956 PMCID: PMC8961159 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-008369
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Glob Health ISSN: 2059-7908
National standards on family medicine training in Germany as provided by the medical licensure act of 2002
| Training | Duration | Mandatory | Placement in curriculum |
| Family medicine clerkship (‘Blockpraktikum’) | 2 weeks | Yes | 8–10th semester (second or third clinical year) |
| Clinical elective ‘Famulatur’ | 4 weeks (16 weeks total) | One of four clinical electives in a GP practice is mandatory | Clinical years (1–3) |
| Practical year training in family medicine | 3 months | No | Final year/Internship (‘Praktisches Jahr’) |
GP, general practitioner.
Planned curricular changes in Germany related to family medicine
| Major topic | Point |
| (1) Competency orientation |
Strengthen competency-based curricula Further elaborate NKLM with all stakeholders NKLM-based final exams |
| (2) Practical orientation |
Integration of PC practices in medical education Final exam in GP practice |
| (3) Longitudinal tracks |
Scientific reasoning Communication Interprofessionalism Family medicine |
| (4) Better representation of family medicine in the curriculum |
Obligatory part of the medical licensure exam. One quarter of the practical (final) year in ambulatory PC care. Establishment of PC research networks. Family medicine chairs in all universities. |
GP, general practitioner; NKLM, National competency-based catalogue of learning objectives in medicine.; PC, Primary Care.
Description of DLE in the context of current medical curricula regarding primary care competencies
| Topic | Country | ||
| Major category | Subcategory | Brazil (UFF) | Germany (UKT) |
| University setting | History of the discipline | Family medicine (as socially responsible medicine), established in 1994 | Family medicine, established in Tübingen 2015 as independent chair |
| Established medical groups | Political and economic resistance, local counter-reform movements against socially responsible medicine | Partly oppose (mostly due to competition in funding), partly support the ‘new player’ family medicine | |
| Political context | National vision | 1994’s UFF curriculum reform inspired changes of national guidelines for medical training in 2001. The vision was to strengthen the primary care workforce by training medical students in primary care facilities within SUS. | The ‘Masterplan 2020’ provided a vision for curricular reforms but was debated in the public and in academic boards. The vision was to counteract healthcare disparities while improving medical education through a reform of the medical curriculum. |
| Political agenda | (1) Implement SUS’ mandate to organise and train its workforce, (2) counteract regional healthcare disparities especially in underserved areas by recruiting more physicians to work in SUS | Primarily to secure primary healthcare in rural settings. | |
| Policy making (nationally) | Universities have managerial and academic autonomy. They cooperate with local representatives and administration. | Democratically elected parties set an agenda and a goal (see above), which is then negotiated federally, regionally and in the statutory health care-related self-governance boards. | |
| Policy making (regionally) | Medical training and practice are integrated at the public healthcare system, which is committed to local healthcare services | Medical training is provided on a contractual basis with autonomous GP practices. | |
| Curricular reform, curriculum development | Task | Practical implementation of the legal mandate making SUS responsible for the medical education of its future workforce. This involves a dual role in managing the local public health system and teaching undergraduate health courses. | Translating the ‘Masterplan’ into practical, decentralised learning opportunities for medical students while maintaining high teaching quality. Providing learning experiences in rural and remote areas. |
| Course manager experience | ‘Reformers’ have been involved in both the healthcare reform and the UFF medical curriculum reform. | While the political goal provides tailwinds for the curricular reform, its concrete implementation needs to be negotiated on many levels within the self-governed structures of the statutory healthcare system. Resistance by some faculty groups is tangible. | |
| Training scenarios/Decentral learning environments | Social setting | Settings include SUS' healthcare facilities, social work network, public schools, government bureaus, social movements, and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) | Training occurs in the context of local rural communities. 255 GP practices are associated with the university. GP practices are independent enterprises owned by the teaching physicians. |
| Educational goal | From the beginning of their studies, students should have various real-world experiences in the healthcare system with an emphasis on the social context of health and healthcare. | Students should have exposure to a family medicine setting. Students should gain an insight into the role of the family physician in the German health system. They should get the opportunity to improve individual clinical competencies in this setting under supervision of a GP. | |
| Political goal (‘meta goal’) | Students should be able to understand social impact on health, how it produces health and sickness (social production theory). | Students should gain a better understanding of the needs of family medicine and local communities (independent of later career choice) | |
| Physical distance | Training is within the limits of the Rio’s metropolitan region two with the cities of Niterói (515.317 inhabitants) and São Gonçalo (1.091.737 inhabitants) | Training sites are located within a radius of 39.56±27.8 km away from UKT, spanning 25 different regional counties | |
| Communication | There is a digital infrastructure, however stakeholders converse mostly personally, via Email or telephone | ||
| Organisation and Quality Management (QM) | Four Institutes collaborate on the curriculum: The Medicine School, the Collective Health Institute, Biomedicine and Biology) | Content and organisation of the primary care curriculum are planned by Institute of General Practice and Interprofessional Healthcare at UKT. Its implementation is coordinated with the dean’s office. QM meets pronounced challenges due to the heterogeneity of the DLE. | |
| Common problems | Some students and teachers have difficulty understanding the curriculum proposal or openly disagree due to ideological reasons, especially on the role of real practice scenarios | Negative events occur due to teacher-student relationship and lack of feedback. Students criticise long travelling distances. Many stakeholders, including students, experience a disconnect between their prejudices about family medicine acquired as part of the hidden curriculum at the university and the national political agenda to ‘strengthen family medicine’. | |
| Reimbursement of physician teachers/practices | All teaching is performed by SUS or University employees | GP teachers are reimbursed roughly $30 per student per day (which is considered too little by a minority of GP teachers) | |
| Medical students | Prerequisites (competencies and attitudes) | Students require an open mind, willingness to learn, empathy, social sensibility, and interprofessional skills | |
| Student participation | Students participate actively during work-place-based learning and traditional classes, shared experiences among healthcare personnel, patients and communities, debate circles. They use art as expression | Since 2018, there is a quality circle in teaching that involves medical students in QM efforts and curriculum development. Students and GP teachers are actively encouraged to engage in decentral feedback. | |
| Student evaluation and feedback | Overall, there is mild support for the programme. While some students tend to give affable responses, others are more critical or harsh in their wording. Overall there is rising interest for family medicine. | Rising acceptance of family medicine among medical students as a career goal worth pursuing; on the other hand, prejudices and ‘GP bashing’ prevail in a minority of students. | |
DLE, decentral learning environments; GP, general practitioner; SUS, Sistema Único de Saúde; UFF, Universidade Federal Fluminense; UKT, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen.