Evaluation of a pilot interprofessional education programme for eating disorder training in mental health services.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of an Interprofessional Education (IPE) programme in eating disorders for mental health practitioners using a case-based learning approach. METHODS: A total of 25 mental health clinicians were asked to evaluate their IPE programme as part of training for the National Clinical Programme in Eating Disorders. They completed a Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS), a learner reaction questionnaire after each session and a final open evaluation at 4 months. Non-parametric statistical analysis was employed to analyse learner attitudes and reactions, and qualitative information was coded. RESULTS: A total of 23 (92%) clinicians from five disciplines participated. Baseline attitudes towards IPE were positive on all RIPLS subscales, and those with prior IPE experience had most positive views as to its benefits for teamwork and patient care (p=0.036). Learner reactions on content, delivery, outcome and structure indicated that individual learning experience was strongly positively endorsed. Change in clinical practice behaviour was reported in terms of communication, clinical activity, outcome evaluation and confidence. Barriers included other demands on time, organisational support, not having enough patients or co-workers to practice skills, and knowledge differentials between learners. CONCLUSIONS: IPE using a case based learning approach is an effective and acceptable means of developing specialist training across existing service, team and professional boundaries. It has potential for positive impact on knowledge, clinical behaviour and service delivery. Recommendations include the introduction of IPE group guidelines, wider circulation of learning points and content, and the use of self-competency ratings and reflective logs.

Evaluation of the educational climate for specialty trainees in dermatology.

BACKGROUND: Dermatology specialty trainees (STs) in the United Kingdom (UK) are few in number and will join a thinly spread national consultant body. It is of paramount importance to deliver training programmes of the highest quality for these doctors, central to which is the establishment and maintenance of an educational climate conducive to learning. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a pilot study to evaluate the educational climate for dermatology STs in one UK deanery (West Midlands). METHODS: Secondary analysis of published data was performed, from the UK's General Medical Council (GMC) national training survey, and the Job Evaluation Survey Tool (JEST) administered by the West Midlands deanery. A modified online version of the Postgraduate Hospital Educational Environment Measure (PHEEM) was circulated among dermatology STs. RESULTS: The GMC's survey data show that UK dermatology STs rated their training highly in comparison with undifferentiated UK postgraduate trainees. West Midlands dermatology STs (n = 22) scored very similarly to UK dermatology STs. The JEST gave broadly encouraging results, with 21/22 (95%) happy to recommend their posts to colleagues. The modified PHEEM yielded a global mean score of 96.5/152, attracting the descriptor 'more positive than negative but room for improvement'. CONCLUSION: Despite inherent methodological limitations, the GMC, JEST and modified PHEEM surveys have revealed useful comparative triangulated data which allows the conclusion that West Midlands dermatology STs seem to be training in a favourable educational climate. This represents an important facet of the quality assurance process for medical education, and allows insight into areas which may require improvement.

Air bags alone compared with the combination of mechanical restraints and air bags: implications for the emergency evaluation of crash victims.

BACKGROUND: Air bags (ABs) may be perceived by the public and physicians as protection for thoracoabdominal injuries. This study compares injury patterns when air bags are used alone with injury patterns when air bags plus mechanical restraints (MRs) are used. METHODS: Patients treated over a 4-year period with emergency medical services-documented AB deployment alone (n = 16) or AB plus MR (n = 22) were identified by trauma registry query. Medical records were reviewed and injuries recorded. RESULTS: Air bag-alone users had more severe overall (injury severity score > or = 15:9 vs 5), chest (abbreviated injury score [AIS] > or = 3:5 vs 1), and abdominal injuries (AIS > or = 3:6 vs 0). They required more tube thoracostomies (5 vs 0) and laparotomies (6 vs 0), longer hospitalizations (11.9 +/- 3.2 vs 5.3 +/- 1.4 days), and more intensive care unit admissions (8 vs 1). Craniofacial injuries (AIS > or = 3:6 vs 6) and fractures were similar. More victims using air bags alone required impatient rehabilitation and some patients died (6 vs 1). CONCLUSIONS: Crash victims using air bags alone (vs AB plus MR) had increased injury severity, hospitalizations, thoracoabdominal procedures, and rehabilitation. Physicians must be aware of the incomplete protection by air bags alone.