ABSTRACT
Background: The extent to which patients and service users are involved in medical education varies widely. There is a need for an up to date systematic review of the literature that examines what involvement (description), the potential outcome of such involvement (justification) and 'why' such involvement impacts students (clarification).Methods: Systematic searches of four databases were undertaken. Citations were screened and consensus reached for inclusion/exclusion of studies. Quality of study design and interventional presentation were assessed.Results: Of the 39 studies included in the review, 4 studies were encounter based, 17 sharing experiences, 16 with patients involved in teaching, 2 studies describing consumers as tutors, and none with involvement at the institutional level. Outcomes in terms of benefits to learners included increased empathy and understanding of illness as experienced by patients, improved communication with patients and a greater understanding of patient-center care. Educational quality assessment showed specific weaknesses in theoretical underpinning, curriculum outcomes, content or pedagogy.Conclusions: Patients can enrich medical education by allowing learners to explore patient-centered perspectives in holistic care. For educators this review highlights the lack of an underpinning conceptual basis for which to translate theory into practice.
Subject(s)
Education, Medical/methods , Patient Participation/methods , Patient-Centered Care/methods , Physician-Patient Relations , Clinical Competence , Empathy , Humans , Learning , Patient Participation/psychology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , TeachingABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Previous systematic reviews have indicated limited evidence and poor quality evaluations of clinical librarian (CL) services. Rigorous evaluations should demonstrate the value of CL services, but guidance is needed before this can be achieved. OBJECTIVES: To undertake a systematic review which examines models of CL services, quality, methods and perspectives of clinical librarian service evaluations. METHODS: Systematic review methodology and synthesis of evidence, undertaken collaboratively by a group of 8 librarians to develop research and critical appraisal skills. RESULTS: There are four clear models of clinical library service provision. Clinical librarians are effective in saving health professionals time, providing relevant, useful information and high quality services. Clinical librarians have a positive effect on clinical decision making by contributing to better informed decisions, diagnosis and choice of drug or therapy. The quality of CL studies is improving, but more work is needed on reducing bias and providing evidence of specific impacts on patient care. The Critical Incident Technique as part of a mixed method approach appears to offer a useful approach to demonstrating impact. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provides practical guidance regarding the evaluation of CL services. It also provides updated evidence regarding the effectiveness and impact of CL services. The approach used was successful in developing research and critical appraisal skills in a group of librarians.
