How can we teach EBM in clinical practice? : an analysis of barriers to implementation of on-the-job EBM teaching and learning.

Introduction: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) improves the quality of health care. Courses on how to teach EBM in practice are available, but knowledge does not automatically imply its application in teaching. We aimed to identify and compare barriers and facilitators for teaching EBM in clinical practice in various European countries. Methods: A questionnaire was constructed listing potential barriers and facilitators for EBM teaching in clinical practice. Answers were reported on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from not at all being a barrier to being an insurmountable barrier. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 120 clinical EBM teachers from 11 countries. Lack of time was the strongest barrier for teaching EBM in practice (median 5). Moderate barriers were the lack of requirements for EBM skills and a pyramid hierarchy in health care management structure (median 4). In Germany, Hungary and Poland, reading and understanding articles in English was a higher barrier than in the other countries. Conclusion: Incorporation of teaching EBM in practice faces several barriers to implementation. Teaching EBM in clinical settings is most successful where EBM principles are culturally embedded and form part and parcel of everyday clinical decisions and medical practice.

Evaluation of an online, case-based interactive approach to teaching pathophysiology

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate a new pedagogical approach in teaching fluid, electrolyte and acid-base pathophysiology in undergraduate students. METHODS: This approach comprises traditional lectures, the study of clinical cases on the web and a final interactive discussion of these cases in the classroom. When on the web, the students are asked to select laboratory tests that seem most appropriate to understand the pathophysiological condition underlying the clinical case. The percentage of students having chosen a given test is made available to the teacher who uses it in an interactive session to stimulate discussion with the whole class of students. The same teacher used the same case studies during 2 consecutive years during the third year of the curriculum. RESULTS: The majority of students answered the questions on the web as requested and evaluated positively their experience with this form of teaching and learning. CONCLUSIONS: Complementing traditional lectures with online case-based studies and interactive group discussions represents, therefore, a simple means to promote the learning and the understanding of complex pathophysiological mechanisms. This simple problem-based approach to teaching and learning may be implemented to cover all fields of medicine.

Bridging the Gap: establishing the necessary infrastructure and knowledge for teaching and research in neuroscience in Africa.

Advances in neuroscience research over the last few decades have increased our understanding of how individual neurons acquire their specific properties and assemble into complex circuits, and how these circuits are affected in disease. One of the important motives driving neuroscience research is the development of new scientific techniques and interdisciplinary cooperation. Compared to developed countries, many countries on the African continent are confronted with poor facilities, lack of funding or career development programs for neuroscientists, all of which deter young scientists from taking up neuroscience as a career choice. This article highlights some steps that are being taken to promote neuroscience education and research in Africa.

Is the Front Line Prepared for the Changing Faces of Patients? Predictors of Cross-Cultural Preparedness Among Clinical Nurses and Resident Physicians in Lausanne, Switzerland.

UNLABELLED: Phenomenon: Assuring quality medical care for all persons requires that healthcare providers understand how sociocultural factors affect a patient's health beliefs/behaviors. Switzerland's changing demographics highlight the importance of provider cross-cultural preparedness for all patients-especially those at risk for social/health precarity. We evaluated healthcare provider cross-cultural preparedness for commonly encountered vulnerable patient profiles. APPROACH: A survey on cross-cultural care was mailed to Lausanne University hospital's "front-line healthcare providers": clinical nurses and resident physicians at our institution. Preparedness items asked "How prepared do you feel to care for ... ?" (referring to example patient profiles) on an ascending 5-point Likert scale. We examined proportions of "4 - well/5 - very well prepared" and the mean composite score for preparedness. We used linear regression to examine the adjusted effect of demographics, work context, cultural-competence training, and cross-cultural care problem awareness, on preparedness. FINDINGS: Of 885 questionnaires, 368 (41.2%) were returned: 124 (33.6%) physicians and 244 (66.4%) nurses. Mean preparedness composite was 3.30 (SD = 0.70), with the lowest proportion of healthcare providers feeling prepared for patients "whose religious beliefs affect treatment" (22%). After adjustment, working in a sensitized department (β = 0.21, p = .01), training on the history/culture of a specific group (β = 0.25, p = .03), and awareness regarding (a) a lack of practical experience caring for diverse populations (β = 0.25, p = .004) and (b) inadequate cross-cultural training (β = 0.18, p = .04) were associated with higher preparedness. Speaking French as a dominant language and physician role (vs. nurse) were negatively associated with preparedness (β = -0.26, p = .01; β = -0.22, p = .01). Insights: The state of cross-cultural care preparedness among Lausanne's front-line healthcare providers leaves room for improvement. Our study points toward institutional strategies to improve preparedness: notably, making sure departments are sensitized to cross-cultural care resources and increasing provider diversity to reflect the changing Swiss demographic.

Responding to Young People's Health Risks in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomised Trial of Training Clinicians in Screening and Motivational Interviewing.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention implementing best practice guidelines recommending clinicians screen and counsel young people across multiple psychosocial risk factors, on clinicians' detection of health risks and patients' risk taking behaviour, compared to a didactic seminar on young people's health. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomised trial where volunteer general practices were stratified by postcode advantage or disadvantage score and billing type (private, free national health, community health centre), then randomised into either intervention or comparison arms using a computer generated random sequence. Three months post-intervention, patients were recruited from all practices post-consultation for a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview and followed up three and 12 months later. Researchers recruiting, consenting and interviewing patients and patients themselves were masked to allocation status; clinicians were not. SETTING: General practices in metropolitan and rural Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: General practices with at least one interested clinician (general practitioner or nurse) and their 14-24 year old patients. INTERVENTION: This complex intervention was designed using evidence based practice in learning and change in clinician behaviour and general practice systems, and included best practice approaches to motivating change in adolescent risk taking behaviours. The intervention involved training clinicians (nine hours) in health risk screening, use of a screening tool and motivational interviewing; training all practice staff (receptionists and clinicians) in engaging youth; provision of feedback to clinicians of patients' risk data; and two practice visits to support new screening and referral resources. Comparison clinicians received one didactic educational seminar (three hours) on engaging youth and health risk screening. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were patient report of (1) clinician detection of at least one of six health risk behaviours (tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use, risks for sexually transmitted infection, STI, unplanned pregnancy, and road risks); and (2) change in one or more of the six health risk behaviours, at three months or at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were likelihood of future visits, trust in the clinician after exit interview, clinician detection of emotional distress and fear and abuse in relationships, and emotional distress at three and 12 months. Patient acceptability of the screening tool was also described for the intervention arm. Analyses were adjusted for practice location and billing type, patients' sex, age, and recruitment method, and past health risks, where appropriate. An intention to treat analysis approach was used, which included multilevel multiple imputation for missing outcome data. RESULTS: 42 practices were randomly allocated to intervention or comparison arms. Two intervention practices withdrew post allocation, prior to training, leaving 19 intervention (53 clinicians, 377 patients) and 21 comparison (79 clinicians, 524 patients) practices. 69% of patients in both intervention (260) and comparison (360) arms completed the 12 month follow-up. Intervention clinicians discussed more health risks per patient (59.7%) than comparison clinicians (52.7%) and thus were more likely to detect a higher proportion of young people with at least one of the six health risk behaviours (38.4% vs 26.7%, risk difference [RD] 11.6%, Confidence Interval [CI] 2.93% to 20.3%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.7, CI 1.1 to 2.5). Patients reported less illicit drug use (RD -6.0, CI -11 to -1.2; OR 0·52, CI 0·28 to 0·96), and less risk for STI (RD -5.4, CI -11 to 0.2; OR 0·66, CI 0·46 to 0·96) at three months in the intervention relative to the comparison arm, and for unplanned pregnancy at 12 months (RD -4.4; CI -8.7 to -0.1; OR 0·40, CI 0·20 to 0·80). No differences were detected between arms on other health risks. There were no differences on secondary outcomes, apart from a greater detection of abuse (OR 13.8, CI 1.71 to 111). There were no reports of harmful events and intervention arm youth had high acceptance of the screening tool. CONCLUSIONS: A complex intervention, compared to a simple educational seminar for practices, improved detection of health risk behaviours in young people. Impact on health outcomes was inconclusive. Technology enabling more efficient, systematic health-risk screening may allow providers to target counselling toward higher risk individuals. Further trials require more power to confirm health benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.com ISRCTN16059206.