Abstract: A Novel Method of Ethics Education

g din al on lea tion cati e the erna edu enc intdicalonfer me c

2012 INCORPORATING THE 4TH SIFEM CONFERENCE

LYON, FRANCE CENTRE DE CONGRÈ

CONFERENCE ABSTRACTS 2012

medicine and the healthcare professions

1

www.amee.org www.amee.org

Scottish Charity SC031618

AMEE 2012

TUESDAY 28 AUGUST 2012

Counseling, etc.) and the reference sections of relevant articles found.

Study selection: We included studies involving medical undergraduate students, with communication assessment tools for consultations with both real and simulated patients.

We included English, Dutch, German, French, Spanish and Scandinavian languages. Both quantitative and qualitative studies were included, together with studies that describe the development, validation or use of assessment tools for medical communication in the consultation. Articles were excluded when they described: the construction of a tool which was not tested and validated in an educational context; tools only used for selection purposes; and tools used exclusively for postgraduate medical specialist training.

Data extraction: We developed a theoretically driven template by consensus according to the above aims, including required psychometric and edumetric criteria. All authors coded the first 100 references of the electronic search to reach agreement about inclusion and exclusion criteria, and to test the template. We each classified an equal section of the remaining database of references, disagreements were resolved by consensus in-country, and if this was not possible by discussion with a third author in another country. The template was amended on the basis of experience by consensus. The included papers were coded with the final developed template.

Results: A total of 5907 unique references were retrieved, the vast majority from PubMed and Embase. We will present our approach and current findings at this conference.

6K/6 Systematic reviews in medical education and clinical medicine – is there a difference?

Madalena Patricio (Faculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Institute of Introduction to Medicine, Lisbon, Portugal) António Vaz Carneiro (Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEMBE), University of Lisbon, Lisboa, Portugal) (Presenter: Madalena Patricio, Faculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Institute of Introduction to Medicine, Av. Professor Egas Moniz, Lisboa 1649-028, Portugal) Background: It is accepted worldwide that clinical and educational decisions should be informed not by individual opinion but by the best available evidence. Aims: To examine the basis of educational evidence compared to clinical evidence and the different nature of the science behind each approach.

Summary of work: BEME Reviews in medical education and Cochrane Reviews in clinical medicine have been studied to identify similarities and differences between the two approaches.

Summary of results: The evidence to support clinical and educational decision making is different in its nature, as well as in its quality. However, the approach in both cases is similar in its fundamental steps (design a question, select evidence, critically appraise the quality of evidence, synthesize and apply the results). The differences between BEME and Cochrane systematic reviews are perhaps more a matter of degree, than the existence of fundamental differences.

Conclusions: In education as in clinical medicine, decision making should be supported by a hierarchy of evidence, but evidence alone is never sufficient for sound practice. The

potential impact of research in practice is key to both BEME and Cochrane reviews.

6L Short Communications: Ethics 6L/1 A Novel Method of Ethics Education Carolyn Johnston (King's College London, School of Medicine, London, United Kingdom) Felicity A E Jones (King's College London, School of Medicine, London, United Kingdom) Thomas Hindmarch (King's College London, School of Medicine, London, United Kingdom) Margaret Brooks (King's College London, School of Medicine, London, United Kingdom) (Presenter: Carolyn Johnston and Felicity A E Jones, King's College London, School of Medicine, London, United Kingdom) Background: King’s College London has launched a pioneering project, by setting up a Student Clinical Ethics Committee (SCEC) which seeks to mirror hospital-based counterparts.

Summary of work: The SCEC meets monthly to discuss a case encountered in clinical practice. The student referrer, with agreement of the consultant caring for the patient, presents the (anonymised) case at the meeting. Contributors include the Chair, SCEC members and observers from a range of healthcare specialties. The dialogue adheres to a clear ethical framework seeking to cover a range of pertinent ethical issues. Case discussions are written up and posted on the university intranet/virtual campus.

Summary of results: Educational outcomes extend beyond the realm of theoretical learning. The SCEC provides a method of encouraging students to grapple with the complexity of cases experienced in a clinical setting. Students gain transferable life-skills and the process promotes communication and listening skills within a multidisciplinary framework. SCEC has received extremely positive feedback from all stakeholders.

Conclusions: Through its dynamic and inclusive approach, the SCEC has the potential to play an important role in ethics teaching for healthcare students.

Take-home messages: Interactive case-based teaching of ethics, through methods such as SCEC, enables students to learn and retain a wide range of skills applicable for their future clinical practice.

6L/2 Integrating ethics and law with clinical teaching Melissa Gardner (UCL Medical School, Academic Centre for Medical Education, London, United Kingdom) Jayne Kavanagh (UCL Medical School, Academic Centre for Medical Education, London, United Kingdom) (Presenter: Melissa Gardner, UCL Medical School, Academic Centre for Medical Education, Archway Campus, 2-10 Highgate Hill, London N19 5LW, United Kingdom)

212 | P a g e