PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15960788

Developing an outcome-focused core curriculum.

David Newble·Patsy Stark·Nigel Bax·Mary Lawson
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many UK medical schools have modified their curricula to meet the requirements of the General Medical Council and other external agencies. In particular, efforts have been focused on increasing integration and reducing factual overload through the definition of a core curriculum. Various approaches to curriculum change have been adopted in an attempt to meet such demands. PURPOSE: This paper describes a curriculum development process, which commences with a clear vision, adopts an outcome-based approach and identifies clear statements of learning outcomes. The process led to the development of an outcome-focused core curriculum structured around clinical problems, which is available to all students and staff. CONCLUSION: A model of curriculum development has evolved which is relatively simple in concept, and appears to be easy to comprehend by students, teaching staff and visitors from other institutions. It provides a practical framework for managing the difficult problems of integration and factual overload. It should be of general interest and applicability to other schools with health professional programmes looking for a realistic and acceptable way of defining a core curriculum.

Explore related subjects

Clinical CompetenceCurriculumEducation, Medical, UndergraduateEnglandJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

David Newble, Patsy Stark, Nigel Bax, Mary Lawson. 2005. Developing an outcome-focused core curriculum.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02198.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Reader error during CT colonography: causes and implications for training.

This study investigated the variability in baseline computed tomography colonography (CTC) performance using untrained readers by documenting sources of error to guide future training requirements. Twenty CTC endoscopically validated data sets containing 32 polyps were consensus read by three unblinded radiologists experienced in CTC, creating a reference standard. Six readers without prior CTC training [four residents and two board-certified subspecialty gastrointestinal (GI) radiologists] read the 20 cases. Readers drew a region of interest (ROI) around every area they considered a potential colonic lesion, even if subsequently dismissed, before creating a final report. Using this final report, reader ROIs were classified as true positive detections, true negatives correctly dismissed, true detections incorrectly dismissed (i.e., classification error), or perceptual errors. Detection of polyps 1-5 mm, 6-9 mm, and > or =10 mm ranged from 7.1% to 28.6%, 16.7% to 41.7%, and 16.7% to 83.3%, respectively. There was no significant difference between polyp detection or false positives for the GI radiologists compared with residents (p=0.67, p=0.4 respectively). Most missed polyps were due to failure of detection rather than characterization (range 82-95%). Untrained reader performance is variable but generally poor. Most missed polyps are due perceptual error rather than characterization, suggesting basic training should focus heavily on lesion detection.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed2006

Assessment of radiation dose awareness among pediatricians.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing awareness among pediatric radiologists of the potential risks associated with ionizing radiation in medical imaging. However, it is not known whether there has been a corresponding increase in awareness among pediatricians. OBJECTIVE: To establish the level of awareness among pediatricians of the recent publicity on radiation risks in children, knowledge of the relative doses of radiological investigations, current practice regarding parent/patient discussions, and the sources of educational input. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multiple-choice survey. RESULTS: Of 220 respondents, 105 (48%) were aware of the 2001 American Journal of Roentgenology articles on pediatric CT and radiation, though only 6% were correct in their estimate of the quoted lifetime excess cancer risk associated with radiation doses equivalent to pediatric CT. A sustained or transient increase in parent questioning regarding radiation doses had been noticed by 31%. When estimating the effective doses of various pediatric radiological investigations in chest radiograph (CXR) equivalents, 87% of all responses (and 94% of CT estimates) were underestimates. Only 15% of respondents were familiar with the ALARA principle. Only 14% of pediatricians recalled any relevant formal teaching during their specialty training. The survey response rate was 40%. CONCLUSION: Awareness of radiation protection issues among pediatricians is generally low, with widespread underestimation of relative doses and risks.

Clinical Competence↗