Integrating elements of undergraduate curriculum learning

Integrating elements of undergraduate curriculum learning Rapidly advancing practice and recognition of nursing, midwifery and medicine as a vital interrelated workforce, implies a need for a variety of curricula opportunities. This project addresses the challenge for healthcare educators to widen student engagement and participation through inter-professional education by creating learning environments whereby student interactions foster the desire to develop situational awareness, independent learning and contribution to patient advocacy. Overall aim of this ‘Feeding and Nutrition in Infants and Children’ project is to provide opportunities for integrated learning to enable students to advance their knowledge and understanding of current best practice. This Inter-professional (IPE) student-lead workshop was initially implemented in 2006-07 in collaboration with the Centre for Excellence in IPE, within the curricula of medical and nursing programmes¹. Supported by the development of a student resource pack, this project is now being offered to Learning Disability nursing and Midwifery students since September 2014. Methods: Fourth year medical students, undertaking a ‘Child Healthcare module’, alongside nursing and /or midwifery students are divided into groups with three or four students from each profession. Each group focuses on a specific feeding problem that is scenario-based on a common real-life issue prior to the workshop and then present their findings / possible solutions to feeding problem. They are observed by both facilitators and peers, who provide constructive feedback on aspects of performance including patient safety, cultural awareness, communication, decision making skills, teamwork and an appreciation of the role of various professionals in managing feeding problems in infants and children. Results: Participants complete a Likert-scale questionnaire to ascertain their reactions to this integrated learning experience. Ongoing findings suggest that students evaluate this learning activity very positively and have stated that they value the opportunity to exercise their clinical judgement and decision making skills. Most recent comments: ‘appreciate working alongside other student’s / multidisciplinary team approach’ As a group students engage in this team problem-solving exercise, drawing upon their strengths and abilities to learn from each other. This project provides a crucial opportunity for learning and knowledge exchange for all those medical, midwifery and nursing students involved. Reference: 1. Purdy, J. & Stewart, M (2009) ‘Feeding and Nutrition in Infants and Children: An Interprofessional Approach’. The Clinical Teacher, vol 6, no.3. Authors: Dr. Angela Bell, Centre for Medical Education, Queen’s University Belfast. Doris Corkin, Senior Lecturer (education), Children’s Nursing, School of Nursing & Midwifery, Queen’s University Belfast. Carolyn Moorhead, Midwifery Lecturer, School of Nursing & Midwifery, Queen’s University Belfast. Ann Devlin, Lecturer (education), Learning Disability Nursing, School of Nursing & Midwifery, Queen’s University Belfast.

Dose-response relationship in phase 1 clinical trials: a European Drug Development Network (EDDN) Collaboration Study

Introduction: Because a dose–response relationship is characteristic of conventional chemotherapy, this concept is widely used for the development of novel cytotoxic (CTX) drugs. However, the need to reach the MTD to obtain optimal benefit with molecularly targeted agents (MTA) is controversial. In this study, we evaluated the relationship between dose and efficacy in a large cohort of phase I patients with solid tumors.

Experimental Design: We collected data on 1,182 consecutive patients treated in phase I trials in 14 European institutions in 2005–2007. Inclusion criteria were: (i) patients treated within completed single-agent studies in which a maximum-administered dose was defined and (ii) RECIST/survival data available.

Results: Seventy-two percent of patients were included in trials with MTA (N = 854) and 28% in trials with CTX (N = 328). The objective response (OR) rate was 3% and disease control at 6 months was 11%. OR for CTX was associated with higher doses (median 92% of MTD); this was not the case for MTA, where patients achieving OR received a median of 50% of MTD. For trials with MTA, patients treated at intermediate doses (40%–80%) had better survival compared with those receiving low or high doses (P = 0.038). On the contrary, there was a direct association between higher dose and better OS for CTX agents (P = 0.003).

Conclusion: Although these results support the development of novel CTX based on MTD, we found no direct relationship between higher doses and response with MTA in unselected patients. However, the longest OS was seen in patients treated with MTA at intermediate doses (40%–80% of MTD)

Health professionals' and service users' perspectives of shared care for monitoring wet age-related macular degeneration: a qualitative study alongside the ECHoES trial

Objectives: To explore the views of eye health professionals and service users on shared community and hospital care for wet or neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

Method: Using maximum variation sampling, 5 focus groups and 10 interviews were conducted with 23 service users and 24 eye health professionals from across the UK (consisting of 8 optometrists, 6 ophthalmologists, 6 commissioners, 2 public health representatives and 2 clinical eye care advisors to local Clinical Commissioning Groups). Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using constant comparative techniques derived from grounded theory methodology.

Results: The needs and preferences of those with nAMD appear to be at odds with the current service being provided. There was enthusiasm among health professionals and service users about the possibility of shared care for nAMD as it was felt to have the potential to relieve hospital eye service burden and represent a more patient-centred option, but there were a number of perceived barriers to implementation. Some service users and ophthalmologists voiced concerns about optometrist competency and the potential for delays with referrals to secondary care if stable nAMD became active again. The health professionals were divided as to whether shared care was financially more efficient than the current model of care. Specialist training for optometrists, under the supervision of ophthalmologists, was deemed to be the most effective method of training and was perceived to have the potential to improve the communication and trust that shared care would require.

Conclusions: While shared care is perceived to represent a promising model of nAMD care, voiced concerns suggest that there would need to be greater collaboration between ophthalmology and optometry, in terms of interprofessional trust and communication.