Models for intensive care training. A European perspective.

The diversity of European culture is reflected in its healthcare training programs. In intensive care medicine (ICM), the differences in national training programs were so marked that it was unlikely that they could produce specialists of equivalent skills. The Competency-Based Training in Intensive Care Medicine in Europe (CoBaTrICE) program was established in 2003 as a Europe-based worldwide collaboration of national training organizations to create core competencies for ICM using consensus methodologies to establish common ground. The group's professional and research ethos created a social identity that facilitated change. The program was easily adaptable to different training structures and incorporated the voice of patients and relatives. The CoBaTrICE program has now been adopted by 15 European countries, with another 12 countries planning to adopt the training program, and is currently available in nine languages, including English. ICM is now recognized as a primary specialty in Spain, Switzerland, and the UK. There are still wide variations in structures and processes of training in ICM across Europe, although there has been agreement on a set of common program standards. The combination of a common "product specification" for an intensivist, combined with persisting variation in the educational context in which competencies are delivered, provides a rich source of research inquiry. Pedagogic research in ICM could usefully focus on the interplay between educational interventions, healthcare systems and delivery, and patient outcomes, such as including whether competency-based program are associated with lower error rates, whether communication skills training is associated with greater patient and family satisfaction, how multisource feedback might best be used to improve reflective learning and teamworking, or whether increasing the proportion of specialists trained in acute care in the hospital at weekends results in better patient outcomes.

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.