Interprofessional education in clinical practice: Not a single vaccine

In increasingly complex health service environments, the quality of teamwork and co-operation between doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, is 'under the microscope'. Interprofessional education (IPE), a process whereby health professionals learn 'from, with and about each other', is advocated as a response to widespread calls for improved communication and collaboration between healthcare professionals. Although there is much that is commendable in IPE, the authors caution that the benefits may be overstated if too much is attributed to, or expected of, IPE activities. The authors propose that clarity is required around what can realistically be achieved. Furthermore, engagement with clinicians in the clinical practice setting who are instrumental in assisting students make sense of their knowledge through practice, is imperative for sustainable outcomes. © AHHA 2010.

Clinical teaching: Maintaining an educational role for doctors in the new health care environment

Context and objectives: Good clinical teaching is central to medical education but there is concern about maintaining this in contemporary, pressured health care environments. This paper aims to demonstrate that good clinical practice is at the heart of good clinical teaching. Methods: Seven roles are used as a framework for analysing good clinical teaching. The roles are medical expert, communicator, collaborator, manager, advocate, scholar and professional. Results: The analysis of clinical teaching and clinical practice demonstrates that they are closely linked. As experts, clinical teachers are involved in research, information retrieval and sharing of knowledge or teaching. Good communication with trainees, patients and colleagues defines teaching excellence. Clinicians can 'teach' collaboration by acting as role models and by encouraging learners to understand the responsibilities of other health professionals. As managers, clinicians can apply their skills to the effective management of learning resources. Similarly skills as advocates at the individual, community and population level can be passed on in educational encounters. The clinicians' responsibilities as scholars are most readily applied to teaching activities. Clinicians have clear roles in taking scholarly approaches to their practice and demonstrating them to others. Conclusion: Good clinical teaching is concerned with providing role models for good practice, making good practice visible and explaining it to trainees. This is the very basis of clinicians as professionals, the seventh role, and should be the foundation for the further development of clinicians as excellent clinical teachers.

The good, the bad and the ugly of bone-anchored prostheses: Guideline to assess true clinical outcomes

The aim of this study is to share the key elements of an evaluation framework to determine the true clinical outcomes of bone-anchored prostheses. Scientists, clinicians and policy makers are encouraged to implement their own evaluations relying on the proposed framework using a single database to facilitate reflective practice and, eventually, robust prospective studies.

Salt in the desert: A comparison of clinical versus serum-calculated osmolality determination of dehydration

Background: Clinicians frequently use their own judgement to assess patient’s hydration status although there is limited evidence for the diagnostic utility of any individual clinical symptom. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of clinically assessed dehydration in older hospital patients (using multiple symptoms), versus dehydration measured using serum-calculated osmolality (CO) as the reference standard. Method: Participants were 44 hospital patients aged ≥ 60 years. Dehydration was assessed clinically and pathologically (CO) within 24 hours of admission and at study exit. Indicators of diagnostic accuracy were calculated. Results: Clinicians identified 27% of patients as dehydrated at admission, and 19% at exit, compared to 19% and 16% using CO. Agreement between the measures was fair at admission and poor at exit. Clinical assessment showed poor sensitivity for predicting dehydration with reasonable specificity. Conclusions: Compared to the use of CO, clinical assessment of dehydration in older patients was poor. Given that failure to identify dehydration in this population may have serious consequences, we recommend that clinicians do not rely upon their own assessments without also using the reference standard.