Search

Medical Education 2011: 46: 13-20 Context The concept of outcomes has been used in health care for over 140 years. The use of outcomes in assessing quality of care regained prominence in the 1960s based on Donabedian's framework of structures, processes and outcomes. In the 1990s, the use of outcomes in medical education gained great favour, although the outcomes used were not carefully defined. Recently, a debate has ensued about the costs and, thus, sustainability of current health care programmes, focusing on the (non-)necessity of services, missed prevention opportunities and the efficiency of treatment programmes. Measurements using education outcomes and health care outcomes must take these issues into account, preferably from a common framework. As health care becomes increasingly costly and even inefficient, issues of effectiveness are often neglected in policy making. Methods This paper uses peer-reviewed evidence and an outcomes framework to explore the implications of current realities for the makers of education policy in the health professions and for the staff who train health professionals. Discussion If the ultimate impacts of practices and policies in health professions education are not considered, how will we know if our education structures, processes and outcomes are optimal? This essay examines this question from the perspectives of three related issues. The first refers to the need for a common framework if the outcomes of patient and community care are to be evaluated properly. The second perspective refers to whether it is feasible to consider both patient-based outcomes and patient-reported outcomes in assessing the impact of education programmes, especially at more advanced levels of training. The third perspective concerns the challenges and limitations that may be encountered in focusing on patient outcomes as a measure of the impact of education. The concluding discussion suggests how the results of such longer-term impact studies should be interpreted as key validity checks on the quality and effectiveness of medical education and clinical education if we are to address the validity and efficiency of outcomes used in education and training. Medical Education 2012: 46: 13-20 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multidisciplinary and interprofessional working is currently a priority in health care policy, in caring for patients and in health professional education. Realising multidisciplinary approaches presents challenges in the context of changes in doctors' and nurses' roles and the increased emphasis placed on communication with patients. In communication in consultations, explanations are employed in the service of numerous activities, including decision making, diagnosis and physical examination, but they have been little studied. This paper presents findings from a comparative study of doctors' and nurses' communication with patients in multidisciplinary health care, focusing on diabetes in primary care. Video- and audio-recorded consultations were subjected to conversation analysis. Output from discussion groups with patient representatives and health professionals underwent qualitative analysis. Distinctive features of explanations in nurses' and doctors' consultations with patients were identified. These can be understood by reference to patterns of communication. Nurses' communication was mediated by patients' contributions; doctors' communication gave an overarching direction to the consultation as a whole. While nurses' explanations began from the viewpoint of a patient's responsibility and behaviour, doctors' explanations began from the viewpoint of biomedical intervention. Their consultations lent different opportunities for patients' involvement. Nurses' and doctors' communications each exhibit their own distinct features. Specification of these features, when considered in the context of a particular consultation activity such as explanations, allows both recognition of the distinct contributions each profession can offer and identification of ways of combining these to maximum effect. This has implications for policy, for practice and for interprofessional education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]