Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The number of resources available to medical students studying a degree in medicine is growing exponentially. In addition to traditional learning resources such as lectures and textbooks, students are increasingly using e-learning tools like commercially available question banks to supplement their learning. Student preference for learning resources has not been described in detail, and a better understanding of the tools perceived to be useful could provide essential information to medical educators when designing and implementing medical curricula. Methods We invited 1083 undergraduate and postgraduate medical students from two major Australian universities to complete an online survey. Questions asked students to indicate the frequency with which they use various types of resources when learning new material or when revising previous content. Results Approximately one third (32.3%, N  = 350) of invited participants completed the survey, and of those who responded, the gender distribution was even with a median age of 25 years. Making written notes and reading textbooks were the most frequently utilized resources for learning new material. Online or downloaded question banks were the most frequently used resource for revision. In addition to the use of traditional learning tools, the majority of students report using a variety of e-learning tools including online teaching videos (92%, n  = 322) and question banks (90.6%, n  = 317). Conclusion Despite the trend towards e-learning, traditional resources like attendance at face-to-face lectures remain the most popular for learning new material. The increasing use of question banks raises potential issues of poor alignment to medical school curricula. With the advantages of exam technique practice, time efficiency and multiplatform availability, their popularity is likely to continue. Evaluation of existing question banks is required to facilitate appropriate integration into the curricula, with equitable access for all students.

Background Internationally, medical schools have long used a variety of approaches to develop hybrid Problem based learning (PBL) curricula. However, Team-based learning (TBL), has gained recent popularity in medical education. TBL maintains the advantages of small group teaching and learning, but in contrast to Problem-based learning (PBL), does not require large numbers of tutors. In 2016, TBL was introduced to Year 1 of the Sydney Medical Program (SMP).This study sought to compare students’ perceptions of using TBL in place of PBL. Methods Year 1 students ( n  = 169) completed three PBL and three TBL sessions during one of the following teaching blocks: Musculoskeletal ( n  = 56), Respiratory ( n  = 59) or Cardiovascular ( n  = 54). Student feedback following completion of each block of teaching was collected by questionnaire, using closed and open ended items. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Results In total, 144/169 (85%) of participants completed a questionnaire regarding PBL, and 152/169 (90%) completed a similar questionnaire regarding TBL. The students found positive aspects of their TBL experience to include the smaller group size, the use of readiness assurance tests, immediate feedback from senior clinicians, and time efficiency. In PBL, students reported that variable expertise of tutors; limited direction; and large group size hindered their learning. Conclusions Overwhelmingly, students preferred TBL over PBL, as the optimal teaching strategy. Students found the structure and format of the TBL sessions more conducive to learning, engagement and participation than PBL sessions. Although the use of TBL required an instructional approach, needing direction from the tutor, it remained student-centred, generating a range of positive outcomes. Study results provide confidence to change from PBL to TBL within Year 1 and Year 2 of the SMP in 2017.

Background Two established small-group learning paradigms in medical education include Case-based learning (CBL) and Team-based learning (TBL). Characteristics common to both pedagogies include the use of an authentic clinical case, active small-group learning, activation of existing knowledge and application of newly acquired knowledge. However, there are also variances between the two teaching methods, and a paucity of studies that consider how these approaches fit with curriculum design principles. In this paper we explore student and facilitator perceptions of the two teaching methods within a medical curriculum, using Experience based learning (ExBL) as a conceptual lens. Methods A total of 34/255 (13%) Year 2 medical students completed four CBLs during the 2019 Renal and Urology teaching block, concurrent to their usual curriculum activities, which included weekly TBLs. Questionnaires were distributed to all students ( n  = 34) and CBL facilitators ( n  = 13). In addition, all students were invited to attend focus groups. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Results In total, 23/34 (71%) of students and 11/13 (85%) of facilitators completed the questionnaires. Twelve students (35%) participated in focus groups. Findings indicate their experience in CBL to be positive, with many favourable aspects that built on and complemented their TBL experience that provided an emphasis on the basic sciences. The learning environment was enriched by the CBL framework that allowed application of knowledge to solve clinical problems within the small groups with consistent facilitator guidance and feedback, their capacity to focus discussion, and associated efficiencies in learning. Conclusion While the TBL model was integral in developing students’ knowledge and understanding of basic science concepts, the CBL model was integral in developing students’ clinical reasoning skills. The strengths of CBL relative to TBL included the development of authentic clinical reasoning skills and guided facilitation of small group discussion. Our findings suggest that delivery of a medical curriculum may be enhanced through increased vertical integration, applying TBL in earlier phases of the medical program where the focus is on basic science principles, with CBL becoming more relevant as students move towards clinical immersion.

Absract Background With increased student numbers in the Sydney Medical Program, and concerns regarding standardisation across cohorts, student satisfaction of the problem-based learning (PBL) model had decreased in recent years. In 2017, Team-based learning (TBL) replaced PBL in Years 1 and 2 of the medical program. This study sought to explore students’ perceptions of their experience of TBL, and to consider resource implications. Methods In 2017, Years 1 and 2 medical students ( n  = 625) participated in weekly TBL sessions, with approximately 60 students per class, consisting of 11 teams of five or six students. Each class was facilitated by a consultant, a basic scientist and a medical registrar. Prior to each class, students were given pre-work, and completed an online Individual Readiness Assurance Test (IRAT). During face-to-face class, students completed the Team Readiness Assurance Test (TRAT), and received feedback with clarification from facilitators, followed by clinical problem-solving activities. Student feedback was collected by questionnaire, using closed and open-ended items. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Results In total, 232/275 (84%) Year 1 and 258/350 (74%) Year 2 students responded to the questionnaire. Students found positive aspects of TBL included the small group dynamics, intra- and inter-team discussions, interactions with facilitators, provision of clinical contexts by clinicians, and the readiness assurance process. Suggested improvements included: better alignment of pre-reading tasks, shorter class time, increased opportunity for clinical reasoning, and additional feedback on the mechanistic flowchart. Resource efficiencies were identified, such as a reduction in the number of teaching sessions and required facilitators, and the ability to provide each classroom with clinical expertise. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that TBL, as a replacement for PBL in Years 1 and 2 of the medical curriculum, provided a standardised approach to small group learning on a large scale, and also provided resource efficiencies. Students perceived benefits related to the active learning strategy of TBL that encourage individual learning, consolidation of knowledge, retrieval practice, peer discussion and feedback. However, improvements are needed in terms of better alignment of pre-reading tasks with the TBL patient case, and greater facilitator interaction during the problem-solving activities. Additionally, consideration should be given to reducing class time, and providing TRAT scores.

Background Although challenging to integrate within university curricula, evidence suggests that interprofessional education (IPE) positively impacts communication and teamwork skills in the workplace. The nature of Team-based learning (TBL) lends itself to interprofessional education, with the capacity to foster a culture of collaboration among health professional students. Our study was designed to pilot an interprofessional ‘back pain’ TBL module for physiotherapy and medical students, and to explore their experience of the TBL process, using the conceptual framework of ‘knowledge reconsolidation’ to discuss our finding. Methods Three hundred and eleven students participated in the TBL session: 222/277 (80%) of Year 1 medical students and 89/89 (100%) of Year 2 physiotherapy students. Students completed one interprofessional Musculoskeletal Sciences TBL session on the topic of ‘back pain’. A questionnaire including closed and open-ended items, was distributed to students immediately following completion of the TBL session. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the quantitative data. Thematic analysis was used to code and categorise qualitative data into themes. Pre-class quiz scores were compared between the groups using a one-way between groups Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test with Tukeys Post Hoc test. Results In total, 117/311 (38%) of participants completed the questionnaire. Both medicine and physiotherapy students appreciated the opportunity to learn about the curriculum of another healthcare discipline, and their scope of practice; gain multiple perspectives on a patient case from different disciplines; and recognised the importance of multidisciplinary teams in patient care. Students felt having an interprofessional team of facilitators who provided immediate feedback helped to consolidate student learning and promoted clinical reasoning. An analysis of variance revealed no difference between Physiotherapy and Medical students’ pre-class quiz scores. Conclusion Our study demonstrated that the small group and task-focused characteristics of TBL provided a student-centred teaching strategy to support the achievement of interprofessional learning goals. Students valued their interactions with other students from a different professional degree, the opportunity to problem solve together, and learn different perspectives on a patient case. The pre-class quiz results demonstrate that both groups of students had a comparative level of prior knowledge to be able to work together on the in-class activities.

Background Peer review in Team-based learning (TBL) exists for three key reasons: to promote reflection on individual behaviours; provide opportunities to develop professional skills; and prevent ‘free riders’ who fail to contribute effectively to team discussions. A well-developed process that engages students is needed. However, evidence suggests it remains a difficult task to effectively incorporate into TBL. The purpose of this study was to assess medical students’ ability to provide written feedback to their peers in TBL, and to explore students’ perception of the process, using the conceptual framework of Biggs ‘3P model’. Methods Year 2 students ( n  = 255) participated in peer review twice during 2019. We evaluated the quality of feedback using a theoretically derived rubric, and undertook a qualitative analysis of focus group data to seek explanations for feedback behaviors. Results Students demonstrated reasonable ability to provide positive feedback, but were less prepared to identify areas for improvement. Their ability did not improve over time, and was influenced by the perceived task difficulty; social discomfort; and sense of responsibility in providing written feedback. Conclusions To increase student engagement, we require a transparent process that incorporates verbal feedback and team discussion, with monitoring of outcomes by faculty and adequate training.

Background Rapid changes in medical practice have a large impact on the demands faced by educators in preparing students for future participation in a multifaceted healthcare workforce. Competencies required by today’s medical graduates encompass the ability to effectively collaborate, communicate and problem solve. The learning needs of medical students have also changed over time. Today’s medical students are highly interconnected, enjoying teamwork and collaborative practice, and desire continuous, explicit feedback. They want structured learning activities, with clear expectations, and enjoy a sense of accomplishment on their achievements. The conflation of these issues has seen many medical schools adopt the model of Team-based learning (TBL). Using the conceptual framework of communities of practice, we sought to qualitatively explore students’ and teachers’ experience of TBL in Year 1 of a graduate entry medical program. Methods Convenience sampling was used to select 169/350 (48%) Year 1 students who completed three TBL sessions. Each TBL session was facilitated by three senior clinicians. Following participation in the TBLs, students were invited to attend focus groups, and all facilitators ( n  = 9) were invited to attend interviews. A coding framework was developed to code the entire dataset, using the theoretical lens of communities of practice. Results 34/169 (20%) of students attended focus groups. Three facilitators (3/9, 33%) were interviewed. Students and facilitators felt the structure and organisation of TBL made students accountable for their learning and team contributions. The combined expertise and clinical experience of facilitators, with immediate feedback helped groups to work both independently and collaboratively. Facilitators found working with their peers in the TBLs to be a rewarding experience. Conclusions The community of practice found in the TBL classes, provided an enriching and rewarding learning environment that motivated students to build on their basic knowledge and apply what had been learnt. The interactions of experienced, senior clinicians as facilitators, sharing their expertise within a clinical context, prompted effective student engagement in learning and understanding. Our change in curriculum design and pedagogy will assist in preparing medical students for demands of the increasingly complex healthcare systems in which they will work.

Background and objective: The research term “interstitial pneumonia with autoimmune features” (IPAF) encompasses interstitial lung disease (ILD) patients with autoimmune features not meeting diagnostic criteria for a defined connective tissue disease (CTD). It remains unclear if IPAF is a distinct disease entity with implications for management and prognosis. We describe an Australian IPAF population and compare their baseline characteristics and outcomes with distinct cohorts of idiopathic interstitial pneumonia (IIP), CTD-ILD, and unclassifiable ILD. Methods: Review of 291 consecutive patients attending a specialist ILD clinic was performed. Patients with a diagnosis of IIP, CTD-ILD, and unclassifiable ILD by ILD-multidisciplinary meeting (ILD-MDM) were included. Patients meeting the IPAF criteria were identified. Baseline clinical data, survival, and progression were compared between ILD groups. Results: 226 patients were included, 36 meeting the IPAF criteria. IPAF patients demonstrated a high prevalence of autoantibodies to tRNA synthetase (35.3%), Ro52 (27.8%), and neutrophilic cytoplasmic antigens (ANCA; 20.0%). IPAF and CTD-ILD patients demonstrated similar clinical characteristics (mean age 66.6 and 63.7 years, respectively, female predominant, frequent CTD-manifestations). Lung function did not differ between ILD groups. Disease severity, pulmonary hypertension (PH), and ILD-MDM diagnosis were strong predictors of worse transplant-free survival (TFS). Meeting the IPAF criteria was not associated with TFS. Conclusions: We identified IPAF as a heterogeneous phenotype that overlaps considerably with CTD-ILD. Disease severity, PH, and ILD-MDM diagnosis were more powerful predictors of survival outcomes than meeting the IPAF criteria.

Background The evidence for the positive impact of an electronic Portfolio (ePortfolio) on feedback in medicine is mixed. An ePortfolio for medical long cases in a Graduate Medical Program was developed. The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of medical students and faculty of the impact of the ePortfolio on the feedback process. Methods In total, 130 Year 3 medical students, and six faculty participated in the study. This is a mixed methods study, using a combination of both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Quantitative methods were used to quantify the number of long cases performed. Qualitative methods were used to explore the relationship between quantity and quality of feedback, and provide a rich understanding of both students’ and faculty’s experience and perceptions of the ePortfolio. Results Students received a variable quantity of feedback at each of the three studied clinical schools, with an average of between 4 – 5.4 feedback episodes per student. Feedback that was constructive, specific and timely and delivered by a senior academic was important. Quantity was not an essential factor, with two episodes of detailed feedback reported to be adequate. The barriers to the use of the ePortfolio were technical aspects of the platform that interfered with student engagement. Conclusions Feedback using the ePortfolio for medical long cases is a valuable tool providing a senior clinician delivers detailed, constructive and personalized feedback in a timely fashion. The ePortfolio system needs to be user-friendly to engage students.

Objective To estimate the one year prognosis and identify prognostic factors in cases of recent onset low back pain managed in primary care.Design Cohort study with one year follow-up.Setting Primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia.Participants An inception cohort of 973 consecutive primary care patients (mean age 43.3, 54.8% men) with non-specific low back pain of less than two weeks’ duration recruited from the clinics of 170 general practitioners, physiotherapists, and chiropractors.Main outcome measures Participants completed a baseline questionnaire and were contacted six weeks, three months, and 12 months after the initial consultation. Recovery was assessed in terms of return to work, return to function, and resolution of pain. The association between potential prognostic factors and time to recovery was modelled with Cox regression.Results The follow-up rate over the 12 months was more than 97%. Half of those who reduced their work status at baseline had returned to previous work status within 14 days (95% confidence interval 11 to 17 days) and 83% had returned to previous work status by three months. Disability (median recovery time 31 days, 25 to 37 days) and pain (median 58 days, 52 to 63 days) took much longer to resolve. Only 72% of participants had completely recovered 12 months after the baseline consultation. Older age, compensation cases, higher pain intensity, longer duration of low back pain before consultation, more days of reduced activity because of lower back pain before consultation, feelings of depression, and a perceived risk of persistence were each associated with a longer time to recovery.Conclusions In this cohort of patients with acute low back pain in primary care, prognosis was not as favourable as claimed in clinical practice guidelines. Recovery was slow for most patients. Nearly a third of patients did not recover from the presenting episode within a year.