The Building Partnerships Program: An Approach to Community-based Learning for Medical Students in Australia

The Building Partnerships Program at the University of Queensland, Australia seeks to address the dual challenge of preparing doctors who are responsive to the community while providing a meaningful context for social sciences learning. Through partnerships with a diverse range of community agencies, the program offers students opportunities to gain non-clinical perspectives on health and illness through structured learning activities including: family visits; community agency visits and attachments; and interview training. Students learn first-hand about psychosocial influences on health and how people manage health problems on a day-to-day basis. They also gain insights into the work of community agencies and how they as future doctors might work in partnership with them to enhance patient care. We outline the main components of the program, identify challenges and successes from student and community agency perspectives, and consider areas that invite further development.

Guideline-discordant care in acute myocardial infarction: predictors and outcomes

Objectives: To determine (i) factors which predict whether patients hospitalised with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) receive care discordant with recommendations of clinical practice guidelines; and (ii) whether such discordant care results in worse outcomes compared with receiving guideline-concordant care. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Two community general hospitals. Participants: 607 consecutive patients admitted with AMI between July 1997 and December 2000. Main outcome measures: Clinical predictors of discordant care; crude and risk-adjusted rates of inhospital mortality and reinfarction, and mean length of hospital stay. Results: At least one treatment recommendation for AMI was applicable for 602 of the 607 patients. Of these patients, 411(68%) received concordant care, and 191 (32%) discordant care. Positive predictors at presentation of discordant care were age > 65 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% Cl, 1.7-3.6), silent infarction (OR, 2.7; 95% Cl, 1.6-4.6), anterior infarction (OR, 2.5; 95% Cl, 1.7-3.8), a history of heart failure (OR, 6.3; 95% Cl, 3.7-10.7), chronic atrial fibrillation (OR, 3.2; 95% Cl, 1.5-6.4); and heart rate greater than or equal to 100 beats/min (OR, 2.1; 95% Cl, 1.4-3.1). Death occurred in 12.0% (23/191) of discordant-care patients versus 4.6% (19/411) of concordant-care patients (adjusted OR, 2.42; 95% Cl, 1.22-4.82). Mortality was inversely related to the level of guideline concordance (P = 0.03). Reinfarction rates also tended to be higher in the discordant-care group (4.2% v 1.7%; adjusted OR, 2.5; 95% Cl, 0.90-7.1). Conclusions: Certain clinical features at presentation predict a higher likelihood of guideline-discordant care in patients presenting with AMI Such care appears to increase the risk of inhospital death.

Whither our Art? Clinical Wisdom & Evidence-based Medicine

The relationship between evidence-based medicine (EBM) and clinical judgement is the subject of conceptual and practical dispute. For example, EBM and clinical guidelines are seen to increasingly dominate medical decision-making at the expense of other, human elements, and to threaten the art of medicine. Clinical wisdom always remains open to question. We want to know why particular beliefs are held, and the epistemological status of claims based in wisdom or experience. The paper critically appraises a number of claims and distinctions, and attempts to clarify the connections between EBM, clinical experience and judgement, and the objective and evaluative categories of medicine. I conclude that to demystify clinical wisdom is not to devalue it. EBM ought not be conceived as needing to be limited or balanced by clinical wisdom, since if its language is translatable into terms comprehensible and applicable to individuals, it helps constitute clinical wisdom. Failure to appreciate this constitutive relation will help perpetuate medical paternalism and delay the adoption of properly evidence-based practice, which would be both unethical and unwise.

Eugenics or empowered choice? Community issues arising from prenatal testing

The prevention of inherited disabilities is viewed in two contrasting ways – either as enhancing reproductive choice and improving population health, or as discriminating against disabled community members. We argue that modern clinical genetics, including preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), reflects a persistent and defensible desire by the community to prevent disability, rather than as increasing discrimination or threatening to produce a 'new eugenic' society. Screening should be presented as a distinct issue for decision-making about the prevention or acceptance of disability, rather than as a routinely accepted component of antenatal care. The community must improve its understanding of the experiences of those who manage disability, and continue to debate the issues of discrimination, selective genetic prevention and enhancement, reproductive freedom, and eugenics.

The differential role of alcohol expectancies, drinking refusal self-efficacy and coping resources in predicting alcohol consumption in community and clinical samples

This study explored the relationship between coping, alcohol expectancies and drinking refusal self-efficacy in predicting drinking behaviour in both community and clinical samples. These variables were found to have differential effects in their association with frequency and volume of alcohol consumption across the two samples. Generally, drinking refusal self-efficacy was a more salient factor in relation to frequency and volume of community drinking, while coping and expectancies were more strongly associated with frequency of drinking sessions by problem drinkers. The interaction between expectancies and drinking refusal self-efficacy was related to volume of consumption in both groups, while coping and expectancies interacted in their association with frequency in the clinical group. The findings are discussed with regard to the different patterns of cognitive variables governing the decision to drink and the amount consumed in each drinking session, which may differentiate community and problem drinkers.