Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25324329›Full record

ArticleAge and ageing2015

Towards an understanding of why undergraduate teaching about delirium does not guarantee gold-standard practice--results from a UK national survey.

James Michael Fisher, Adam Lee Gordon, Alasdair M J MacLullich, Ellen Tullo, Daniel H J Davis, Adrian Blundell, Robert H Field, Andrew Teodorczuk

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Age and ageing, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

James Michael FisherDepartment of Medicine, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Wansbeck General Hospital, Woodhorn Lane, Ashington, Northumberland, UK.
Adam Lee GordonDivision of Rehabilitation and Ageing, University of Nottingham, Medical School, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK.
Alasdair M J MacLullichDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Ellen TulloNewcastle NIHR Biomedical Research Centre in Ageing and Chronic Disease, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Daniel H J DavisUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK Cambridge Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Adrian BlundellHealth Care of the Older Person, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Robert H FieldNewcastle University Medical School, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Andrew TeodorczukSchool of Medical Education, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Cumbria Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust · GBEdinburgh Royal Infirmary · GBNewcastle University · GBNIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre · GBNottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBQueen's Medical Centre · GBUniversity College London · GBWansbeck General Hospital · GB

Funding

Department of Health 11/143/01Medical Research Council MR/K026992/1Wellcome Trust 090661
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgrounddelirium is common and serious, yet frequently missed by medical staff. It is known that delirium is widely taught and examined in UK medical schools; however, what is taught, and how such teaching is delivered, remains unknown. The primary aim of this study was to determine the content of UK undergraduate medical education about delirium and establish how it is delivered. A secondary aim was to highlight and share examples of gold-standard teaching on delirium.

methodsall UK undergraduate medical schools were invited to complete a survey. Schools were asked to describe how delirium was taught and to provide delirium-related learning outcomes. Learning outcomes were mapped to the three overarching themes outlined in Tomorrow's Doctors (knowledge, skills and attitudes).

results24/31 schools (77%) provided responses. In line with previous work, delirium was widely taught and examined. 18/24 schools reported at least one learning outcome that mapped to the knowledge domain, 19/24 for the skills domain and 2/24 for the attitudes domain. 4/24 evaluated the impact of sessions and 3/24 involved patients and the public in teaching. 13/24 schools were confident that exposure to delirium was guaranteed. Innovative teaching methods were reported by a number of schools; weblinks to examples are provided. DISCUSSION: there was widespread failure to address attitudes on delirium within teaching, to evaluate the impact of sessions, to involve patients and the public in teaching and to guarantee exposure to delirium. Future teaching interventions should be directed at attitudinal outcomes, using a synthesis of clinical experience with multidisciplinary interaction and supportive technologies.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelClinical CompetenceCurriculumDeliriumEducation, Medical, UndergraduateHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansLearningPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'Schools, MedicalSurveys and QuestionnairesTeachingUnited Kingdomdeliriumeducationgeriatric medicineolder peopleteachingundergraduate

Identifiers

PMID25324329
PMCPMC4601531
OpenAlexW2112195652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.