The influence of teaching setting on medical students' clinical skills development: is the academic medical center the "gold standard"?

PURPOSE: Many medical schools have revised their curricula to include longitudinal clinical training in the first and second years, placing an extra burden on academic teaching faculty and expanding the use of community-based preceptors for clinical teaching. Little is known about the impact of different learning settings on clinical skills development. METHOD: In 2002-03 and 2003-04, the authors evaluated the clinical skills of two sequential cohorts of second-year medical students at Dartmouth Medical School (n = 155) at the end of a two-year longitudinal clinical course designed to prepare them for their clerkship year. Students' objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) scores were compared on a cardiopulmonary and an endocrine case according to precepting sites (academic medical center [AMC] clinics, AMC-affiliated office-based clinics, or community-based primary care offices) and core communication, history taking, physical examination, and patient education skills were assessed. Study groups were compared using descriptive statistics and analysis of variance (mixed model). RESULTS: Ninety-five students (61%) had community-based preceptors, 31 (20%) AMC clinic-based preceptors, and 29 (19%) AMC-affiliated office-based preceptors. Students' performances did not differ among clinical learning sites with overall scores in the cardiopulmonary case of 61.2% in AMC clinics, 63.3% in office-based AMC-affiliated clinics, and 64.9% in community-based offices (p = .20). Scores in the endocrine case similarly did not differ with overall scores of 65.5% in AMC clinics, 68.5% in office-based AMC-affiliated clinics, and 66.4% in community-based offices (p = .59). CONCLUSIONS: Students' early clinical skill development is not influenced by educational setting. Thus, using clinicians for early clinical training in any of these settings is appropriate.

Impact of a telephone counseling intervention on transitions in stage of change and adherence to interval mammography screening (United States).

BACKGROUND: Interventions to improve adherence to regular mammography screening have had conflicting results. Many studies have depended on women's self-report rather than clinical evidence of a mammography encounter. METHODS: We tested the impact of two interventions on a population-based sample of NH women who were not receiving routine mammography to determine if adherence to screening could be improved. The interventions included a mailing of women's health information and a telephone counseling intervention based on the Transtheoretical Model. Participant eligibility and outcome measures were based on clinical events obtained from a population-based mammography registry. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty eight women completed all aspects of the intervention study. The women were randomly assigned to one of two study groups: 51% received the mail intervention and 49% received the telephone intervention. Among women who received the telephone counseling intervention, 67% percent reported being in either an action or maintenance stage at Call 1, which increased to 84% at Call 2 (p<0.001). Seventy-six percent of women identified barriers to screening mammography at Call 1, which decreased to 44% at Call 2 (p<0.01). The most frequently identified barrier was confusion over the guidelines for screening mammography. At the first assessment time interval, greater than 60% of women were up-to-date for screening mammography in the group that received telephone counseling versus 48% in the group that received health information by mail (p = 0.04). However, women's status as up-to-date fell for both groups between the first and second assessment time intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Tailored telephone counseling based on the Transtheoretical Model can improve adherence to screening mammography, though the duration of this effect is in question.

Factors associated with interval adherence to mammography screening in a population-based sample of New Hampshire women.

BACKGROUND: Interval adherence to mammography screening continues to be lower than experts advise. The authors evaluated, using a population-based mammography registry, factors associated with adherence to recommended mammography screening intervals. METHODS: The authors identified and recruited 625 women aged 50 years and older who did and did not adhere to interval mammography screening. Demographic and risk characteristics were ascertained from the registry and were supplemented with responses on a mailed survey to assess knowledge, perceived risk, anxiety regarding breast carcinoma and its detection, and women's experiences with mammography. RESULTS: The authors found no differences in risk factors or psychologic profiles between adhering and nonadhering women. Women who did not adhere had a statistically higher body mass index than women who did adhere (27.6 versus 26.1, P = 0.003). Exploration of mammographic experiences by group found that care taken by technologists in performing or talking women through the exam was higher in adhering women than nonadhering women (75.6% vs 65.71% for performing the exam, and 71.6% vs 60.8% for talking patients through the exam, respectively, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The authors found that previous negative mammographic experiences, particularly those involving mammography technologists, appear to influence interval adherence to screening and that patient body size may be an important factor in this negative experience.