Does first aid have a place in the medical curriculum? A survey of medical students

Introduction: When a medical emergency occurs in the prehospital environment, there is an expectation from the general public for medical students to offer assistance with a similar level of competence as qualified doctors. However, the question is raised; do medical students have sufficient training in first aid skills to fulfil the role expected of them?

Prior to the publication of the latest version of Tomorrow’s Doctors by the UK General Medical Council, a student selected component (SSC) in first aid was delivered at the medical school in Queen’s University Belfast (QUB), Northern Ireland. The overwhelming popularity of this SSC prompted a desire to investigate and understand students’ experiences of first aid.

Aim: To identify first and second year medical students’ knowledge of, and attitudes towards, first aid and their expectations of the medical curriculum.

Methods: A questionnaire was delivered using TurningPoint Audience Response System® during the second semester of the 2008 - 2009 academic year to all first and second year medical students at QUB.

Results: Less than half of the students felt that they had a good level of first aid knowledge, a third would feel confident helping in an emergency and only 10% would be confident leading an emergency situation. The vast majority of students believed first aid is beneficial, that the general public expect medical students to have the knowledge to handle an emergency situation, and that a full first aid course should be included in the core medical curriculum at an early stage. They did not believe it should be a pre-requisite for medical school.

Conclusion: Only a small proportion believed their first aid knowledge adequate. An overwhelming proportion believed that first aid training is beneficial and that the public expect competency in managing emergencies. This study clearly demonstrates students’ need and desire for first aid training in the core medical curriculum at an early stage and to the highest training level possible.

First steps: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of the Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) program compared to routine care in improving outcomes for high-risk mothers and their children and preventing abuse

Background: Evidence from the USA suggests that the home-based Family Nurse Partnership program (FNP), extending from early pregnancy until infants are 24 months, can reduce the risk of child abuse and neglect throughout childhood. FNP is now widely available in the UK. A new variant, Group Family Nurse Partnership (gFNP) offers similar content but in a group context and for a shorter time, until infants are 12 months old. Each group comprises 8 to 12 women with similar expected delivery dates and their partners. Its implementation has been established but there is no evidence of its effectiveness.

Methods/Design: The study comprises a multi-site randomized controlled trial designed to identify the benefits of gFNP compared to standard care. Participants (not eligible for FNP) must be either aged <20 years at their last menstrual period (LMP) with one or more previous live births, or aged 20 to 24 at LMP with low educational qualifications and no previous live births. 'Low educational qualifications' is defined as not having both Maths and English Language GCSE at grade C or higher or, if they have both, no more than four in total at grade C or higher. Exclusions are: under 20 years and previously received home-based FNP and, in either age group, severe psychotic mental illness or not able to communicate in English. Consenting women are randomly allocated (minimized by site and maternal age group) when between 10 and 16 weeks pregnant to either to the 44 session gFNP program or to standard care after the collection of baseline information. Researchers are blind to group assignment. The primary outcomes at 12 months are child abuse potential based on the revised Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory and parent/infant interaction coded using the CARE Index based on a video-taped interaction. Secondary outcomes are maternal depression, parenting stress, health related quality of life, social support, and use of services.

Discussion: This is the first study of the effectiveness of gFNP in the UK. Results should inform decision-making about its delivery alongside universal services, potentially enabling a wider range of families to benefit from the FNP curriculum and approach to supporting parenting.

Development of a Complex Intervention for Secondary Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease in Primary Care Using the UK Medical Research Council Framework

Objective: To apply the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for development and evaluation of trials of complex interventions to a primary healthcare intervention to promote secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Study Design: Case report of intervention development. Methods: First, literature relating to secondary prevention and lifestyle change was reviewed. Second, a preliminary intervention was modeled, based on literature findings and focus group interviews with patients (n = 23) and staff (n = 29) from 4 general practices. Participants’ experiences of and attitudes toward key intervention components were explored. Third, the preliminary intervention was pilot-tested in 4 general practices. After delivery of the pilot intervention, practitioners evaluated the training sessions, and qualitative data relating to experiences of the intervention were collected using semistructured interviews with staff (n = 10) and patient focus groups (n = 17). Results: Literature review identified 3 intervention components: a structured recall system, practitioner training, and patient information. Initial qualitative data identified variations in recall system design, training requirements (medication prescribing, facilitating behavior change), and information appropriate to the prospective study participants. Identifying detailed structures within intervention components clarified how the intervention could be tailored to individual practice, practitioner, and patient needs while preserving the theoretical functions of the components. Findings from the pilot phase informed further modeling of the intervention, reducing administrative time, increasing practical content of training, and omitting unhelpful patient information. Conclusion: Application of the MRC framework helped to determine the feasibility and development of a complex intervention for primary care research.