The James Lind Library: explaining and illustrating the evolution of fair tests of medical treatments

The James Lind Library (www.jameslindlibrary.org) has been established to improve public and professional general knowledge about fair tests of treatments in healthcare and their history. Its foundation was laid ten years ago at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, and its administrative centre is in the College's Sibbald Library, one of the most important collections of historic medical manuscripts, papers and books in the world. The James Lind Library is a website that introduces visitors to the principles of fair tests of treatments, with a series of short, illustrated essays, which are currently available in English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish. A 100-page book-- Testing Treatments--is now available free through the website, both in English and in Arabic and Spanish translations. To illustrate the evolution of ideas related to fair tests of treatments from 2000 BC to the present, the James Lind Library contains key passages and images from manuscripts, books and journal articles, many of them accompanied by commentaries, biographies, portraits and other relevant documents and images, including audio and video files. New material is being added to the website continuously, as relevant new records are identified and as methods for testing treatments evolve. A multinational, multilingual editorial team oversees the development of the website, which currently receives tens of thousands of visitors every month.

Comparability of Outcome Frameworks in Medical Education: Implications for framework development

Background: The demand for international harmonization in medical education increases with the growing mobility of students and health professionals. Many medical societies and governmental offices have issued outcome frameworks (OF), which describe aims and contents of medical education based on competencies. These national standards affect the development of curricula as well as assessment and licensing procedures. Comparing OF and identifying factors that limit their comparability may thus foster international harmonization of medical education. Summary of Work: We conducted a systematic search for national OF in MedLine, EmBase and the internet. We included all OF in German or English that resulted from a national consensus process and were published or endorsed by a national society or governmental body. We extracted information in five predetermined categories: history of origin, audience, formal structure, medical schooling system and key terms. Summary of Results: Out of 1816 results, 13 OF were included into further analyses. OF reference each other, often without addressing existing differences (e.g. in target audiences). The two most cited OF are “CanMEDs” and “Scottish Doctor”. OF differ especially in their level of detail as well as in the underlying educational system. Discussion and Conclusions: Based on our results we propose a two-step blueprint for OF, that may help to establish comparability for internationally aligned key features – so-called “core competencies” – while at the same time allowing for necessary regional adaptations in terms of “secondary competencies”. Take-home messages: Considerable differences in at least five categories of OF currently hinder the comparability of outcome frameworks.