Barriers and facilitators for implementation of a national recommended specialty core-curriculum across UK medical schools: a cross-sectional study using an online questionnaire.

OBJECTIVES: The National Health Service (NHS) Long-Term plan published in 2019 set out healthcare reforms to meet the healthcare demands of UK. Undergraduate specialty core-curricula like dermatology aligns well to the training needs of the future workforce but lacks representation, consistency and implementation. This study explores the barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of a specialty-specific (dermatology) national core-curriculum across UK medical schools. DESIGN: A constructivist approach was used to develop an online questionnaire and data collected using mixed methodology. PARTICIPANTS: Undergraduate dermatology teaching leads across all UK medical schools. RESULTS: 30 out of 42 UK medical schools responded to the survey (71%). 16 out of 30 (53%) responders were unaware of the planned Medical Licensing Assessments (MLA) for all UK graduates in 2024-2025; 43% were unaware if dermatology was mapped to national standards; 50% were unsure if the dermatology was blueprinted on school curricula. Barriers to implementation included competing NHS service commitments, the specialty not seen as a priority and difficulty influencing curricula changes at school level. Facilitators included workforce planning and transparency in funding to support leadership in undergraduate education. Domains identified for curriculum implementation were: (1) awareness of the role of General Medical Council and the MLA, (2) medical education training for teaching leads, (3) lack of recognition and resources for leadership, (4) skills development to map, blueprint and assess specialty core-components, (5) medical school and specialty engagement. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies the potential barriers and facilitators to specialty specific core-curricular implementation across UK medical schools. Lack of standardised training in medical education, time and resources undermine the role of specialty teaching leads as medical educators. Medical school engagement with specialties with mutual support would aid the forthcoming educational reforms.

Do we need a core curriculum for medical students? A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: The General Medical Council (GMC) recommends medical schools to develop and implement curricula enabling students to achieve the required learning outcomes. UK medical schools follow the GMC's Outcomes for graduates, which are generic. GMC plans to introduce a national Medical Licensing Assessment (MLA) for the medical graduates wanting to practise medicine in the UK in 2022. With no standardised or unified undergraduate (UG) curriculum in UK, various specialties have expressed concerns about not being represented in medical schools and developed specialty-specific core curricula. The aim of this review was to identify learned bodies who have developed a core curriculum for UK medical schools and highlight the drivers, gaps and future approaches to curricular development and implementation. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using online databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, ERIC, HMIC, PubMed and CDSR), search engines and related websites (Google and Google Scholar, Department of Health, GMC and BMA) for relevant articles from 1996 to 5 March 2019 (~20 years). A methodological framework to map the key concepts of UG medical curriculum was followed. Any relevant body with a core curriculum for UK medical UGs was included. RESULTS: A total of 1283 articles were analysed with 31 articles included in the qualitative synthesis, comprising 26 specialties (clinical n=18, foundation subjects n=4 and professionalism related n=4). WHO, European and national (eg, Royal Colleges of UK) specialty bodies provided specific core learning outcomes for the medical graduates. Patient safety, disease burden, needs of society and inadequate preparedness of medical graduates were drivers for the development of these curricula. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comprehensive review of literature on UG core curricula recommending minimum standards on knowledge and skills, in alignment with GMC's Outcomes for graduates for all the UK medical students. Adopting and assessing unified standards would help reduce variability across UK medical schools for both generic and specialty-specific competencies.

H1-antihistamines for chronic spontaneous urticaria: an abridged Cochrane Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spontaneous urticaria is characterized by recurrent itchy wheals. First-line management is with H1-antihistamines. OBJECTIVE: We sought to conduct a Cochrane Review of H1-antihistamines in the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria. METHODS: A systematic search of major databases for randomized controlled trials was conducted. RESULTS: We included 73 studies with 9759 participants; 34 studies provided outcome data for 23 comparisons. Compared with placebo, cetirizine 10 mg daily in the short and intermediate term (RR 2.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.51-4.91) led to complete suppression of urticaria. Levocetirizine 20 mg daily was effective for short-term use (RR 20.87; 95% CI 1.37-317.60) as was 5 mg for intermediate-term use (RR 52.88; 95% CI 3.31-843.81). Desloratadine 20 mg was effective for the short term (RR 15.97; 95% CI 1.04-245.04) as was 5 mg in the intermediate term (RR 37.00; 95% CI 2.31-593.70). There was no evidence to suggest difference in adverse event rates between treatments. LIMITATIONS: Some methodological limitations were observed. Few studies for each comparison reported outcome data that could be incorporated in meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: At standard doses, several antihistamines are effective and safe in complete suppression of chronic spontaneous urticaria. Research on long-term treatment using standardized outcome measures and quality of life scores is needed.

H1-antihistamines for chronic spontaneous urticaria.

Background Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is characterised by the development of crops of red, itchy, raised weals or hives with no identifiable external cause.Objectives To assess the effects of H1-antihistamines for CSU.Search methods We searched the following databases up to June 2014: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2014, Issue 5), MEDLINE(from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974) and PsycINFO (from 1806). We searched five trials registers and checked articles for references to relevant randomised controlled trials.Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials of H1-antihistamines for CSU. Interventions included single therapy or a combination of H1-antihistamines compared with no treatment (placebo) or another active pharmacological compound at any dose.Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.Our primary outcome measures were proportion of participants with complete suppression of urticaria: 'good or excellent' response,50% or greater improvement in quality of life measures, and adverse events.We present risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals(CIs). Main results We identified 73 studies (9759 participants); 34 studies provided data for 23 comparisons. The duration of the intervention was up to two weeks (short-term) or longer than two weeks and up to three months (intermediate-term).Cetirizine 10mg once daily in the short term and in the intermediate term led to complete suppression of urticaria by more participants than was seen with placebo (RR 2.72, 95% CI 1.51 to 4.91). For this same outcome, comparison of desloratadine versus placebo in the intermediate term (5 mg) (RR 37.00, 95% CI 2.31 to 593.70) and in the short term (20 mg) (RR 15.97, 95% CI 1.04 to 245.04)favoured desloratadine, but no differences were seen between 5 mg and 10 mg for short-term treatment.Levocetirizine 20 mg per day (short-term) was more effective for complete suppression of urticaria compared with placebo (RR 20.87,95% CI 1.37 to 317.60), and at 5 mg was effective in the intermediate term (RR 52.88, 95% CI 3.31 to 843.81) but not in the shortterm, nor was 10 mg effective in the short term.Rupatadine at 10 mg and 20 mg in the intermediate term achieved a 'good or excellent response' compared with placebo (RR 1.35,95% CI 1.03 to 1.77).Loratadine (10 mg) versus placebo (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.79) and loratadine (10 mg) versus cetirizine (10 mg) (RR 1.05, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.43) over short-term and intermediate-term treatment showed no significant difference for 'good or excellent response' or for complete suppression of urticaria, respectively.Loratadine (10 mg) versus desloratadine (5 mg) (intermediate-term) showed no statistically significant difference for complete suppression of urticaria (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.71). For loratadine(10 mg) versus mizolastine (10 mg) (intermediate-term), no statistically significant difference was seen for complete suppression of urticaria (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.16) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.42).Loratadine (10mg) versus emedastine (2mg) (intermediate-term) showed no statistically significant difference for complete suppression(RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.39) or for 'good or excellent response' (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.24); the quality of the evidence was moderate for this comparison.No difference in short-term treatment was noted between loratadine (10mg) and hydroxyzine (25mg) in terms of complete suppression(RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 3.10).When desloratadine (5 to 20 mg) was compared with levocetirizine (5 to 20 mg), levocetirizine appeared to be the more effective (P value < 0.02).In a comparison of fexofenadine versus cetirizine, more participants in the cetirizine group showed complete suppression of urticaria(P value < 0.001).Adverse events leading to withdrawals were not significantly different in the following comparisons: cetirizine versus placebo at 10 mg and 20 mg (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 13.22); desloratadine 5 mg versus placebo (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.10); loratadine 10 mg versus mizolastine 10 mg (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.60); loratadine 10mg versus emedastine 2mg (RR 1.09, 95%CI 0.07 to 17.14);cetirizine 10 mg versus hydroxyzine 25 mg (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.45); and hydroxyzine 25 mg versus placebo (RR 3.64, 95%CI 0.77 to 17.23), all intermediate term.No difference was seen between loratadine 10 mg versus mizolastine 10 mg in the proportion of participants with at least 50%improvement in quality of life (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.32 to 32.33).Authors' conclusions Although the results of our review indicate that at standard doses of treatment, several antihistamines are effective when compared with placebo, all results were gathered from a few studies or, in some cases, from single-study estimates. The quality of the evidence was affected by the small number of studies in each comparison and the small sample size for many of the outcomes, prompting us to downgrade the quality of evidence for imprecision (unless stated for each comparison, the quality of the evidence was low).No single H1-antihistamine stands out as most effective. Cetirizine at 10 mg once daily in the short term and in the intermediate term was found to be effective in completely suppressing urticaria. Evidence is limited for desloratadine given at 5 mg once daily in the intermediate term and at 20 mg in the short term. Levocetirizine at 5 mg in the intermediate but not short term was effective for complete suppression. Levocetirizine 20 mg was effective in the short term, but 10 mg was not. No difference in rates of withdrawal due to adverse events was noted between active and placebo groups. Evidence for improvement in quality of life was insufficient.