Medical students, clinical preventive services, and shared decision-making
- PMID: 12431938
- DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200211000-00026
Medical students, clinical preventive services, and shared decision-making
Abstract
Objective: Improving access to preventive care requires addressing patient, provider, and systems barriers. Patients often lack knowledge or are skeptical about the importance of prevention. Physicians feel that they have too little time, are not trained to deliver preventive services, and are concerned about the effectiveness of prevention. We have implemented an educational module in the required family practice clerkship (1) to enhance medical student learning about common clinical preventive services and (2) to teach students how to inform and involve patients in shared decision making about those services.
Description: Students are asked to examine available evidence-based information for preventive screening services. They are encouraged to look at the recommendations of various organizations and use such resources as reports from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to determine recommendations they want to be knowledgeable about in talking with their patients. For learning shared decision making, students are trained to use a model adapted from Braddock and colleagues(1) to discuss specific screening services and to engage patients in the process of making informed decisions about what is best for their own health. The shared decision making is presented and modeled by faculty, discussed in small groups, and students practice using Web-based cases and simulations. The students are evaluated using formative and summative performance-based assessments as they interact with simulated patients about (1) screening for high blood cholesterol and other lipid abnormalities, (2) screening for colorectal cancer, (3) screening for prostate cancer, and (4) screening for breast cancer. The final student evaluation is a ten-minute, videotaped discussion with a simulated patient about screening for colorectal cancer that is graded against a checklist that focuses primarily on the elements of shared decision making.
Discussion: Our medical students appear quite willing to accept shared decision making as a skill that they should have in working with patients, and this was the primary focus of the newly implemented module. However, we have learned that students need to deepen their understanding of screening services in order to help patients understand the associated benefits and risks. The final videotaped interaction with a simulated patient about colorectal cancer screening has been very helpful in making it more obvious to faculty what students believe and know about screening for colorectal cancer. As the students are asked to discuss clinical issues with patients and discuss the pros and cons of screening tests as part of the shared decision-making process, their thinking becomes transparent and it is evident where curricular changes and enhancements are required. We have found that an explicit model that allows students to demonstrate a process for shared decision making is a good introductory tool. We think it would be helpful to provide students with more formative feedback. We would like to develop faculty development programs around shared decision making so that more of our clinical faculty would model such a process with patients. Performance-based assessments are resource-intensive, but they appear to be worth the added effort in terms of enhanced skills development and a more comprehensive appraisal of student learning.
Similar articles
-
Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention. a suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.Am J Prev Med. 2004 Jan;26(1):56-66. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2003.09.011. Am J Prev Med. 2004. PMID: 14700714
-
Student and educator experiences of maternal-child simulation-based learning: a systematic review of qualitative evidence protocol.JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):14-26. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1694. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015. PMID: 26447004
-
Palliative care module within a required geriatrics clerkship: taking advantage of existing partnerships.Acad Med. 2002 Sep;77(9):936-7. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200209000-00042. Acad Med. 2002. PMID: 12228108 Review.
-
Shared decision making: skill acquisition for year III medical students.Fam Med. 2011 Nov-Dec;43(10):721-5. Fam Med. 2011. PMID: 22076715
-
HEAL: an instructional design model applied to an online clerkship in family medicine.Acad Med. 2002 Sep;77(9):925-6. Acad Med. 2002. PMID: 12228093 Review.
Cited by
-
Factors associated with the difference in score between women's and doctors' decisional conflict about hormone therapy: a multilevel regression analysis.Health Expect. 2003 Sep;6(3):208-21. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2003.00234.x. Health Expect. 2003. PMID: 12940794 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Interventions for improving medical students' interpersonal communication in medical consultations.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Feb 8;2(2):CD012418. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012418.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021. PMID: 33559127 Free PMC article.
-
Using a formative simulated patient exercise for curriculum evaluation.BMC Med Educ. 2004 May 12;4:8. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-4-8. BMC Med Educ. 2004. PMID: 15140263 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Shared decision making in peri-operative medicine: Miles to go in Indian scenario.J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2020 Jul-Sep;36(3):316-324. doi: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_250_19. Epub 2020 Sep 26. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2020. PMID: 33487897 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions.Implement Sci. 2006 Aug 9;1:16. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-1-16. Implement Sci. 2006. PMID: 16899124 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous