Search

During their studies to become medical professionals, all students are obliged to become familiar with various aspects of primary care. The aim is to provide all students with a high quality training which ensures the best possible cooperation across all sectors of the medical system. Primary care comprises the primary use of the medical service by an unfiltered set of patients as well as continued patient care -- including home-care. This position paper was developed together with representatives of the German Society of University Teachers of General Practice (GHA), the German Society for Ambulatory General Paediatrics (DGAAP), the German Society of General Practice and Family Medicine (DEGAM) and the German Society for Internal Medicine (DGIM). It includes recommendations for teaching in the field of primary care in four different types of internships such as preclinical work experience ("Hospitation"), 4-week clinical traineeships of a casual nature ("Famulatur") and 2-week courses of structured and assessed clinical training ("Blockpraktikum") as well as a broad-based 4-month elective clinical placement in the final year (known as a practical year, "PJ"). The recommendations encompass structural and process criteria for internships in different general practices. In addition, for the first time recommendations for teaching on campus -- in the fields of generalmedicine, paediatrics, numerous cross-sectional areas and other clinical fields, but also for clinical skills training -- are set down here. In this position paper the intention is to demonstrate the possible ways in which more aspects of primary care could be integrated into undergraduate medical training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Digital learning and self-assessment tools have gained importance in medical education over the last years and are pushing back print media more and more. They enable flexible learning that is aligned with current state exams and the latest scientific findings. Embedded videos, interactive graphics and practice questions offer a more diverse learning experience than using books alone. While the commercial learning tools cover the state examinations' content well, they often lack what is additionally taught in different faculties. At the same time, the dominance of a few providers is tied to rising costs for students or to provide campus licenses. Faculties may thus offer literature and learning platforms of less variety, and an intensive and broad examination of subjects and problems is made more difficult. The promotion and nationwide availability of locally initiated non-commercial learning and examination tools can counteract this development. Electronic learning platforms enable efficient exam preparation with the presentation of exam questions. Paper-based preparatory exams have already been almost completely replaced by their electronic counterparts. Digital exams offer decisive advantages over paper-based exams, for example with the embedding of video sequences and increased feasibility of sequential questions, and should become standard not only in exam preparation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Medical education is gaining in significance internationally. A growing interest in the field has been observed in German-speaking countries (Austria, Germany, Switzerland) since the early 2000s. This interest is not, however, reflected in an increase in the number of publications on medical education of German-speaking authors in international professional journals. The following investigation examines the potential use of active participant numbers of German-speaking researchers at AMEE conferences as a means of measuring said development. Methods: The AMEE conference proceedings fromthe categories poster presentations, short communications, research papers and plenary presentations from the years 2005-2013 were examined for evidence of Austrian, German and Swiss participation. The abstracts were subsequently analysed in terms of content and categorised according to study design, methodology, object of study, and research topic. Results: Of the 9,446 analysed abstracts, 549 contributions show at least one first, last or co-author from Austria, Germany or Switzerland. The absolute number of contributions per conference varied between 44 in 2010 and 77 in 2013. The percentage fluctuated between 10% in 2005 and 4.1% in 2010. From the year 2010 onwards, however, participation increased continually. The research was predominantly descriptive (62.7%). Studies on fundamental questions of teaching and learning (clarification studies) were less frequent (4.0%). For the most part, quantitative methods (51.9%) were implemented in addressing subjects such as learning and teaching methods (33%), evaluation and assessment (22.4%) or curriculum development (14.4%). The study population was usually comprised of students (52.5%). Conclusions: The number of contributions from Austria, Germany and Switzerland peak at the beginning and at the end of the evaluated period of time. A continual increase in active participation since 2005 was not observed. These observations do not reflect the actual increase of interest in medical education research in German-speaking countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Interprofessional collaboration leads to an improvement in health care. This call for increased interprofessional collaboration has led to national and international recommendations for interprofessional learning and education. The GMA has taken up this challenge and has implemented a working group on "interprofessional education in the health professions" to address this topic. The terminology used to describe collaboration among the health professions seems to vary and does not reflect any clear consensus. The aim of this paper is to identify the different terms used to describe collaboration between health professions and to analyse their use in German journals. Methods: The terms frequently used to describe collaboration between health professionals were identified and defined. German medical journals were then pragmatically analyzed regarding the use of the terms interprof* and interdiszip*. Results: The German terms for interprofessional and interdisciplinary were not used consistently in the journals reviewed. Conclusion: There seems to be no agreement on the use of terms to describe the collaboration between health professions. Consistent terminology should be used as a basis for promoting collaboration and improving understanding among the parties involved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]