Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34286196›Full record

ArticleFuture healthcare journal2021

Scholarship, teaching practice and educational responsibility: Issues in designing and implementing a quality improvement and evidence-based practice module in the undergraduate curriculum.

Anne McKee, Gulshan Cindy Sethi, Joe Esland, Hannah Wright, Louise Dubras

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Future healthcare journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Anne McKeeGKT School of Medical Education, London, UK.
Gulshan Cindy SethiGKT School of Medical Education, London, UK and Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Joe EslandEdinburgh Medical School, Edinburgh, UK.
Hannah WrightHealthcare Quality Improvement Partnership, London, UK.
Louise DubrasUlster University School of Medicine, Coleraine, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As part of a review of the undergraduate medical curriculum at King's College London, a module preparing students to undertake a quality improvement project (QIP) was developed. Using an illuminative evaluation method, the successes and challenges of the module were identified. The student experience lay along a continuum. At one end, QIPs enabled some significant improvements within trusts and primary care. Projects were presented in their clinical settings and at national and international conferences, and were published. At the other end of the continuum, students struggled to find an actionable project or have early and regular communication with their supervisors. Poor implementation of the module created challenges. These included misunderstanding of module requirements by students and supervisors, lack of clarity about what a feasible undergraduate project comprised and logistical problems when students moved from their QIP site to their next rotation. Travel back to the QIP site to complete projects involved missing scheduled teaching in their current rotation. Supervisors were unsure how to assess group projects. Key successes included students feeling better prepared to undertake QIPs, students developing a better understanding of the dynamics of clinical settings and teams, and how to manage these to progress projects.

Indexed as

curriculumcurriculum developmentmedical studentsquality improvementundergraduate

Identifiers

PMID34286196
PMCPMC8285129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.