A comparison of learning outcomes and attitudes in student- versus faculty-led problem-based learning: an experimental study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare learning outcomes and perceptions of facilitator behaviours and small-group process in problem-based learning (PBL) groups led by students and those led by faculty. DESIGN: A prospective, Latin-square cross-over design was employed. Second-year medical students participated in 11 PBL cases over the course of the academic year. For each case, half the student groups were led by faculty and the other half by a student group member selected randomly to serve in the facilitator role. Learning outcomes were assessed by performance on objective examinations covering factual materials pertinent to the case. Perceptions of facilitator behaviours and of group functioning were assessed with a questionnaire completed at the end of each individual case. Focus-group discussions were held to gain more in-depth information about student perceptions and experience. Student-led sessions were observed at random by the investigators. SETTING: A state-supported, US medical school with a hybrid lecture-based and problem-based curriculum. SUBJECTS: One hundred and twenty-seven second-year medical students and 30 basic science and clinical faculty. RESULTS: No differences were detected in student performance on the objective evaluation based on whether the facilitator was a faculty member or peer group member, nor were there any differences in the perceptions of group process. Students gave peer facilitators slightly higher ratings in the second semester of the experiment. In the focus-group discussions, students voiced a general preference for student-led groups because they felt they were more efficient. Observation and focus-group reports suggest that groups led by students sometimes took short cuts in the PBL process. CONCLUSION: In a hybrid lecture- and PBL-based curriculum, student performance on objective examinations covering PBL materials is unaffected by the status of the facilitator (student vs. faculty). However, in peer-facilitated groups, students sometimes took short cuts in the PBL process that may undermine some of the intended goals of PBL.

Using practice genograms to understand and describe practice configurations.

BACKGROUND: Demands for change in medical practices are coming from multiple sources. Since interventions to change clinical practice continue to have limited success, understanding the functional structure of primary care practices and the dynamics of providing care have become increasingly important. METHODS: To portray and understand the primary care office system, we developed "practice genograms" that describe practice participants and their relationships with each other. Formal organizational structure is evaluated using family systems theory and family of origin genogram techniques. RESULTS: Practice genograms provided a more dynamic, relational model than the organizational chart and promoted identification of relationship strengths and weaknesses within a practice the same way that family genograms identify these characteristics in a family system. CONCLUSIONS: Research implications for the use of the practice genogram include enhanced data gathering, increased understanding of the complexity of practices as adaptive systems, and increased understanding of current and potential approaches to changing practices.

Dissemination and implementation of Put Prevention into Family Practice.

INTRODUCTION: The Put Prevention into Practice (PPIP) program was developed and disseminated to address patient, clinician, and office barriers that result in less than optimal delivery of preventive services in the United States. METHODS: To study the dissemination of PPIP by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), pre- and post-dissemination surveys of knowledge about PPIP and purchase order data were obtained from the AAFP. In addition, a mail questionnaire was sent to a random sample of purchasers to study their use of PPIP. RESULTS: After two years of active promotion, 27% of AAFP members had heard about PPIP, and PPIP components were purchased by 2,004 individuals during its inital dissemination. Flow sheets, health guides, exam room wall charts, and the Clinician's Handbook of Preventive Services were the PPIP items most frequently purchased and used. Excluding the Clinician's Handbook of Preventive Services, 58% of purchasers used one or more parts of the kit with an average of less than four items used per purchaser. CONCLUSIONS: Initial dissemination and implementation of PPIP among family physicians was limited; continued promotion will likely improve dissemination of PPIP. However, this study, and others suggest that the simple availability of a kit of materials is not sufficient to enhance the delivery of preventive services as envisioned by clinicians or policy makers. Additional strategies for dissemination and implementation of preventive services will be required, such as providing external consultation services to practices, incorporation of preventive services into HMO organizations, and training of residents in strategies for change in their future practices.

An ounce of prevention? Evaluation of the 'Put Prevention into Practice' program.

BACKGROUND: The "Put Prevention into Practice" (PPIP) program was designed to enhance the capacity of health care providers to deliver clinical preventive services. This study was designed to evaluate the program's effectiveness when applied to family physicians in private practice settings. METHODS: Eight Midwestern practices that had purchased PPIP kits were identified and agreed to participate in the study. A comparative case study approach encompassing a variety of data collection techniques was used. These techniques included participant observation of clinic operations and patient encounters, semistructured and key informant interviews with physicians and staff members, chart reviews, and structured postpatient encounter and office environment checklists. Content analysis of the qualitative data and construction of the individual cases were done by consensus of the research team. RESULTS: PPIP materials are not being used, even by the clinics that ordered them. Physicians already providing quality preventive services prefer their existing materials to those in the PPIP kit. Sites that are underutilizing preventive services are unable or unwilling to independently implement the PPIP program. CONCLUSIONS: Development of technical support may facilitate implementation of PPIP materials into those practices most deficient in providing preventive services. Given the diversity of practice environments it is unlikely that a "one size fits all" approach will ever be able to address the needs of all providers.

Risk factors and recommendations for 230 adult primary care patients, based on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.

We used a computer program based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines to identify recommendations for 230 adult patients who presented to an ambulatory family practice residency clinic. We entered risk factors into the computer program from sex-specific questionnaires that patients completed. On average, patients had 15.4 risk factors and 24.5 recommendations for preventive services (13.0 recommendations for screening, 10.5 for counseling, and 1.1 for immunizations). We noted a significant increase in the number of risk factors and recommendations with increasing age, except for counseling recommendations. The average patient incurs a large number of recommendations, which depend on many different risk factors, making the task of complete clinician compliance with the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines difficult. Many of these recommendations include counseling, which may take more time and require skills that clinicians may think they lack. Complete adherence may require several visits for the physician to address all recommendations. Measures to increase patient responsibility for health maintenance and innovations using comprehensive, interactive, and educational computer programs may help solve these problems.

Content of a preceptorship experience: effects of location, gender, and specialty choice.

Ambulatory care experiences for 37 medical students during six consecutive three-week preceptorships in family practice were assessed using student logbooks and end-of-preceptorship feedback forms. Comparisons were made by site of preceptorship (university or nonuniversity), by gender of medical student, and by the students' subsequent specialty choices. Rank orders of diagnoses using a Spearman's rho comparison of ranks were significantly correlated with national data as were most student-to-group comparisons. Students tended to see more patients of their own age group, and female students tended to see more female patients of child bearing age. Students with preceptors in the university setting saw patients who were older than those patients seen by students in nonuniversity preceptorship settings. Students in the university setting also saw fewer patients and performed fewer procedures during the three week preceptorship but had a higher level of participation in patient care. Females reported a lower level of participation in patient care than male students, and students who subsequently went into family practice residencies reported a higher level of participation than those students who entered other specialties.