Purpose: Fifteen years ago, a European survey demonstrated widespread adoption of early clinical exposure (ECE) programmes but little emphasis in the curricula of medical schools. We now repeat the survey in light of the ample emerging data suggesting multiple positive outcomes of ECE. Methods: Online cross-sectional survey in European medical schools conducted by the EURACT Basic Medical Education Committee in 2021. Descriptive quantitative analyses and a thematic analysis approach were used. Results: Eighy-nine (48%) medical schools in 30 European countries responded. ECE was used in 65 (73%) of the medical schools, and 88% of ECE programmes took place in primary care. The median total time spent on the ECE programme was 5 days. Teaching methods covered unstructured learning opportunities such as observation or shadowing doctors, as well as work-based learning whilst seeing real patients or reflecting on own encounters. Learning goals included knowledge, skills, and attitudes. More than half of the respondents expressed barriers to implementing or expanding ECE. Conclusions: Compared to the previous survey, there was no significant change in the adoption or curricular emphasis of ECE programmes. Institutional attitudes towards certain disciplines and a lack of willingness to experiment with new teaching methods may be partially responsible.
Given the importance of their roles in society, the education of professionals is a central concern for providers and recipients of public services. In this article we consider the contribution of research on professional learning to current debate on the form and content of professional education. This mapping review asked, ‘What does the research literature tell us about the characteristics of research into professional learning across professions?’ We identified and synthesised primary research involving post‐qualification professionals' professional learning. We searched seven databases using terms such as ‘professional learning’, ‘professional development’ and ‘continuing education’ from 2000 to date. We carefully screened articles against agreed criteria, extracted data and mapped the findings. After removing duplicates, 20,616 records remained. After full text screening, 356 articles were included: 266 from teaching (75%), 77 from healthcare (22%) and 13 from another profession or cross‐professional (4%). Three included papers that spanned professions. Only 6% of articles studied the institution as the unit of analysis (rather than the individual). Around half of the included papers (49%) included an intervention. Most teaching interventions were proximal to the workplace whereas most healthcare/other studies were distal to the workplace, perhaps reflecting stage of development of the research field. Our study synthesised a heterogeneous literature to indicate the types or research that are needed to progress the debate. The clear differences in ‘style’ between professions suggested that collaboration could provide mutual benefit. Future research requires studies that report research in ways that lend themselves to evidence synthesis or replication.
Pneumothorax is a complication of respiratory distress syndrome, of which many preterm babies suffer. If significant, these pneumothoraces can be treated by the insertion of a chest drain. There are a number of different types of chest drain, and techniques of insertion. This study aims to establish both the quantitative nature, and emotional significance of neonatal pigtail chest drain scarring, as inserted via the Seldinger technique. Parents were interviewed by telephone and asked to send photographs of their child’s scar to be graded. Researchers found that, on the whole, the scar size and severity was not significant, and that those interviewed generally agreed that while the scar served as a reminder of a traumatic time, its size was unimportant. These results may inform future practice on a basis of chest drain comparison; results imply that chest drains with the greatest efficacy should be used.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.