Ethical and professional conduct of medical students: review of current assessment measures and controversies

As medical education increasingly acknowledges the importance of the ethical and professional conduct of practitioners, and moves towards more formal assessment of these issues, it is important to consider the evidence base which exists in this area. This article discusses literature about the health needs and problems experienced by medical practitioners as a background to a review of the current efforts in medical education to promote ethical conduct and develop mechanisms for the detection and remediation of problems.

Early practical experience and the social responsiveness of clinical education: Systematic review

Objectives To find how early experience in clinical and community settings (early experience) affects medical education, and identify strengths and limitations of the available evidence. Design A systematic review rating, by consensus, the strength and importance of outcomes reported in the decade 1992-2001. Data sources Bibliographical databases and journals were searched for publications on the topic, reviewed under the auspices of the recently formed Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) collaboration. Selection of studies All empirical studies (verifiable, observational data) were included, whatever their design, method, or language of publication. Results Early experience was most commonly provided in community settings, aiming to recruit primary care practitioners for underserved populations. It increased the popularity of primary care residencies, albeit among self selected students. It fostered self awareness and empathic attitudes towards ill people, boosted students' confidence, motivated them, gave them satisfaction, and helped them develop a professional identity. By helping develop interpersonal skills, it made entering clerkships a less stressful experience. Early experience helped students learn about professional roles and responsibilities, healthcare systems, and health needs of a population. It made biomedical, behavioural, and social sciences more relevant and easier to learn. It motivated and rewarded teachers and patients and enriched curriculums. In some countries,junior students provided preventive health care directly to underserved populations. Conclusion Early experience helps medical students learn, helps them develop appropriate attitudes towards their studies and future practice, and orientates medical curriculums towards society's needs. Experimental evidence of its benefit is unlikely to be forthcoming and yet more medical schools are likely to provide it. Effort could usefully be concentrated on evaluating the methods and outcomes of early experience provided within non-experimental research designs, and using that evaluation to improve the quality of curriculums.

Influences on doctors' prescribing: Is geographical remoteness a factor?

Objective: To identify factors influencing the prescribing of medicines by general practitioners in rural and remote Australia. Design: A qualitative study using a questionnaire to determine attitudes about prescribing, specific prescribing habits and comments on prescribing in ‘rural practice’. Setting: General practice in rural and remote Queensland. Subjects: General practitioners practising in rural and remote settings in Queensland (n = 258). Main outcome measures: The factors perceived to influence the prescribing of medicines by medical practitioners in rural environments. Results: A 58% response rate (n = 142) was achieved. Most respondents agreed that they prescribe differently in rural compared with city practice. The majority of respondents agreed that their prescribing was influenced by practice location, isolation of patient home location, limited diagnostic testing and increased drug monitoring. Location issues and other issues were more likely to be identified as ‘influential’ by the more isolated practitioners. Factors such as access to continuing medical education and specialists were confirmed as having an influence on prescribing. The prescribing of recently marketed drugs was more likely by doctors practising in less remote rural areas. Conclusion: Practising in rural and remote locations is perceived to have an effect on prescribing. These influences need to be considered when developing quality use of medicines policies and initiatives for these locations. What is already known: Anecdotal and audit based studies have shown that rural general practice differs to urban-based practice in Australia, including some limited data showing some variations in prescribing patterns. No substantiated explanations for these variations have been offered. It is known that interventions to change prescribing behaviour are more likely to be effective if they are perceived as relevant and hence increasing our knowledge of rural doctors’ perceptions of differences in rural practice prescribing is required. What this study adds: Rural doctors believed that they prescribe differently in rural compared with city practice and they described a range of influences. The more remotely located doctors were more likely to report the ‘rural’ influences on prescribing, however, most results failed to reach statistical significance when compared to the less remotely located doctors. These perceptions should be considered when developing medicines policy and education for rural medical practitioners to ensure it is perceived rurally relevant.

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.