Teaching leadership: the medical student society model.

BACKGROUND: All health care professionals in the UK are expected to have the medical leadership and management (MLM) skills necessary for improving patient care, as stipulated by the UK General Medical Council (GMC). CONTEXT: Newly graduated doctors reported insufficient knowledge about leadership and quality improvement skills, despite all UK medical schools reporting that MLM is taught within their curriculum. INNOVATION: A medical student society organised a series of extracurricular educational events focusing on leadership topics. The society recognised that the events needed to be useful and interesting to attract audiences. Therefore, clinical leaders in exciting fields were invited to talk about their experiences and case studies of personal leadership challenges. The emphasis on personal stories, from respected leaders, was a deliberate strategy to attract students and enhance learning. Evaluation data were collected from the audiences to improve the quality of the events and to support a business case for an intercalated degree in MLM. IMPLICATIONS: When leadership and management concepts are taught through personal stories, students find it interesting and are prepared to give up their leisure time to engage with the subject. Students appear to recognise the importance of MLM knowledge to their future careers, and are able to organise their own, and their peers', learning and development. Organising these events and collecting feedback can provide students with opportunities to practise leadership, management and quality improvement skills. These extracurricular events, delivered through a student society, allow for subjects to be discussed in more depth and can complement an already crowded undergraduate curriculum. Newly graduated doctors reported insufficient knowledge about leadership and quality improvement skills.

Leadership and management in UK medical school curricula.

Purpose Although medical leadership and management (MLM) is increasingly being recognised as important to improving healthcare outcomes, little is understood about current training of medical students in MLM skills and behaviours in the UK. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative study used validated structured interviews with expert faculty members from medical schools across the UK to ascertain MLM framework integration, teaching methods employed, evaluation methods and barriers to improvement. Findings Data were collected from 25 of the 33 UK medical schools (76 per cent response rate), with 23/25 reporting that MLM content is included in their curriculum. More medical schools assessed MLM competencies on admission than at any other time of the curriculum. Only 12 schools had evaluated MLM teaching at the time of data collection. The majority of medical schools reported barriers, including overfilled curricula and reluctance of staff to teach. Whilst 88 per cent of schools planned to increase MLM content over the next two years, there was a lack of consensus on proposed teaching content and methods. Research limitations/implications There is widespread inclusion of MLM in UK medical schools' curricula, despite the existence of barriers. This study identified substantial heterogeneity in MLM teaching and assessment methods which does not meet students' desired modes of delivery. Examples of national undergraduate MLM teaching exist worldwide, and lessons can be taken from these. Originality/value This is the first national evaluation of MLM in undergraduate medical school curricula in the UK, highlighting continuing challenges with executing MLM content despite numerous frameworks and international examples of successful execution.

Underreporting of Secondary Endpoints in Randomized Trials: Cross-sectional, Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if underreporting of secondary endpoints in randomized controlled trials occurs, using surgical site infection (SSI) as an example. BACKGROUND: SSI is a commonly measured endpoint in surgical trials and can act as a proxy marker for primary and secondary endpoint assessments across trials in a range of medical specialties. METHODS: Cross-sectional observational study of randomized trials including patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery published in a representative selection of general medical and general surgical journals. Studies were included if SSI assessment was a prespecified endpoint. Adjusted binary logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with a high rate of SSI detection (≥10%). RESULTS: From 216 trials including 45,633 patients, the pooled SSI rate was 7.7% (3519/45,633), which was significantly higher when assessed as a primary endpoint (12.6%, 1993/15,861, 49 studies) vs as a secondary endpoint (5.1%, 1526/29,772, 167 studies, P < 0.001). When assessed as a secondary outcome, standardized definitions and formal clinical reviews were used significantly less often. When adjusted for surgical contamination and methodological confounders, secondary assessment was associated with reduced SSI detection compared with primary assessment (adjusted odds ratio 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.69, P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Secondary endpoint assessment of SSI in randomized trials was associated with significantly reduced rigor and subsequent detection rates compared with assessment as a primary endpoint. Trial investigators should ensure that primary and secondary endpoint assessments are equally robust. PRISMA guidelines should be updated to promote the conduct of meta-analysis based only on primary outcomes from randomized controlled trials.