Teamwork in Health and Rehabilitation Sciences: Evaluation of a multiprofessional workshop

This paper outlines a multiprofessional education workshop piloted and subsequently conducted with a cohort of 81 graduate entry students of occupational therapy, physiotherapy, speech pathology and audiology. The rationale for, and format of, the workshop is outlined, followed by comparisons between students' knowledge about teamwork prior to and after the four-hour workshop. The workshop was based on a real case scenario of a child with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD). Students completed pre- and post-workshop questionnaires about their knowledge of DCD, teamwork and the roles of various professionals and parents; and a post-workshop questionnaire about their views regarding the utility of the workshop, its strengths, and learning outcomes. The evaluation indicated that the workshop was overwhelmingly successful from the students' perspective in: (1) enhancing their understanding about DCD and its multifaceted impact on school age children; (2) developing a deeper appreciation of the importance of teamwork itself; (3) refining their understanding of their own profession's role and (4) developing an appreciation of the role of other professions and parents in working with children with complex needs, and their families. Limitations of this study and directions for future research are discussed.

Panoptic versus conventional ophthalmoscope

Background: The 'ease of use' andaccuracy in measurement of the vertical optic cup/discratio (VCDR) was compared between the conventional direct ophthalmoscope(CO) and Panoptic direct ophthalmoscope (PO) in a group of 'naive' firstyear medical students to determine which would be more suitablefor non-ophthalmologists. Methods: In this quasi-randomized method comparison study,eight students received an introductory session on ophthalmoscopythen examined 18 eyes (9 left, 9 right) with each ophthalmoscopein a private practice. The subjects were the eight students themselvesplus two other subjects. Each subject (n = 10)had one eye dilated. Students determined a VCDR and a subjectivescore of 'ease of use' on a scale of 1 (difficult)to 10 (easy). A consultant ophthalmologist (GAG) determined thebenchmark VCDR for each eye with each ophthalmoscope. Results: Of 288 eye examinations, there were 111 measure-ments of VCDR using the CO (47 undilated, 64dilated), and 140 measurements using the PO (75 undilated, 65 dilated).Differences in the students' estimated VCDR and the benchmarkwere similar for the CO and PO (P = 0.67). 'Easeof use' was scored in 288 eyes and the median score washigher in the PO overall (CO: median 8, IQR 6-9; PO median9, IQR 8-10; P < 0.0001), andwithin each session (P < 0.0001 foreach session). Conclusions: Medical students found the PO mucheasier to use, with accuracy of rating the VCDR similar to the CO. Thiscomparison would support the wider use of the PO amongst medicalstudents, general practitioners and other primary care providers.