IntroductionThe Dutch Medical Doctor-Global Health (MD-GH) prepares to work in low-resource settings (LRS) by completing a hybrid postgraduate training program of 2 years and 9 months, with clinical and public health exposure in the Netherlands and a Global Health residency in LRS. The objectives of the program include acquiring clinical skills to work as a physician in a setting with different (often more severe) pathology and limited resources. In public health teaching, emphasis is given, among other, to adapting to a culturally different environment. After graduation, MD-GH work in a wide variety of countries and settings for variable time. As part of a curriculum review, this study examines MD-GHs' perception of the quality of the training program and provides recommendations for improvement.MethodsA qualitative study was performed. Thematic analysis was applied to semi-structured interviews with 23 MD-GH who graduated between 2017 and 2021.ResultsMD-GHs predominantly worked as clinicians; several were (also) involved in management or capacity building. The clinical training program adequately addressed general skills, but did not sufficiently prepare for locally encountered, often severe, pathology. During the training, adequate supervision with clear learning goals was found pivotal to a positive learning experience. Gaps included clinical training in Internal Medicine (particularly infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases) and Paediatrics. Public Health teaching as well as cultural awareness should be intensified and introduced earlier in the program. The Global Health residency was considered important, but tasks and learning outcomes varied. Teaching, supervision, and capacity building were considered increasingly important key elements of working in LRS. Consensus favoured the current duration of the training program without extension.DiscussionWhile the generalist nature of the MD-GH training was appreciated, the program would benefit from additional clinical training in infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases, and Paediatrics. Moving forward, emphasis should be placed on structured mentorship, enhanced public health teaching, and standardized residency programs with clearly delineated objectives to better equip MD-GH professionals for their multifaceted roles in LRS. Moreover, future revisions of the training program should incorporate the perspectives of host institutes in LRS and tailor the training needs.
MULTIFILE
Aims: Prescribing errors among junior doctors are common in clinical practice because many lack prescribing competence after graduation. This is in part due to inadequate education in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CP&T) in the undergraduate medical curriculum. To support CP&T education, it is important to determine which drugs medical undergraduates should be able to prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision by the time they graduate. Currently, there is no such list with broad-based consensus. Therefore, the aim was to reach consensus on a list of essential drugs for undergraduate medical education in the Netherlands. Methods: A two-round modified Delphi study was conducted among pharmacists, medical specialists, junior doctors and pharmacotherapy teachers from all eight Dutch academic hospitals. Participants were asked to indicate whether it was essential that medical graduates could prescribe specific drugs included on a preliminary list. Drugs for which ≥80% of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed were included in the final list. Results: In all, 42 (65%) participants completed the two Delphi rounds. A total of 132 drugs (39%) from the preliminary list and two (3%) newly proposed drugs were included. Conclusions: This is the first Delphi consensus study to identify the drugs that Dutch junior doctors should be able to prescribe safely and effectively without direct supervision. This list can be used to harmonize and support the teaching and assessment of CP&T. Moreover, this study shows that a Delphi method is suitable to reach consensus on such a list, and could be used for a European list.
MULTIFILE
A substantial part of graduate education in veterinary medicine is spent in clinical practice. During the clinical experiential phase, it is difficult to monitor students' actual knowledge development: they build individual records of experiences based on the cases they have to deal with, while mainly focusing on knowledge that is of direct, clinical relevance to them. As a result, students' knowledge bases may differ to such a degree that a single test alone may not be able to provide an adequate reflection of progress made. In these circumstances, progress testing, which is a method of longitudinal assessment independent of the curricular structure, may offer a viable solution. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to determine the extent to which progress tests (PT) can be used to monitor progress in knowledge development at a graduate level in veterinary medical education. With a 6-month interval, we administered two tests to students based on the Maastricht Progress Test format that covered a large variety of veterinary topics. Consequently, we analyzed students' progress in knowledge development. Based on a substantive appraisal of the questions and analysis of the test results, we concluded that the tests met the measurement criteria. They appeared sensitive enough to gauge the progress made and were appreciated by the students. Hence, in spite of the differences within the whole graduate group, the PT format can be used to monitor students' knowledge development.
DOCUMENT
