Open AccessWhat and how are students taught about communicating risks to patients? Analysis of a medical curriculum
Author(s) -
Franziska Baessler,
Joshua Weidlich,
Sophie Schweizer,
Anja Ciprianidis,
Marina Bartolovic,
Ali Zafar,
Michael S. Wolf,
Fabienne Louise Wagner,
Tabea Chiara Baumann,
André L. Mihaljevic,
Beate Ditzen,
Daniela Roesch-Ely,
Christoph Nikendei,
JobstHendrik Schultz
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0233682
Subject(s) - medical education , curriculum , checklist , competence (human resources) , psychological intervention , core competency , context (archaeology) , medicine , teaching method , psychology , mathematics education , nursing , pedagogy , social psychology , paleontology , marketing , business , cognitive psychology , biology
Background Communication is a core competence in medical care. Failure of physicians to properly communicate inherent risks of medical interventions has been linked with inadequate training at school. This study analyses a medical curriculum for assessing the content and quality of teaching risk communication to students. Methods A checklist based on the national guidelines of core competencies on risk communication required of physicians was developed. Participant observers surveyed all teaching sessions at a medical school during a semester to record the frequency, characteristics and clinical context used by lectures during classes. Data were analyzed using statistical and descriptive methods to determine the prevalence and quality of teaching content. Results 231 teaching sessions were surveyed. The inter-rater reliability was 81%. Lecturers mentioned topics of risk communication in 61.5% of teaching sessions (83.7% in surgery, 43.3% in internal medicine) but core biostatistics concepts were not discussed in more than 80% of these sessions. Important topics such as patient safety and preventable diseases were underrepresented. Risk communication was mainly taught in large-group, theoretical sessions and rarely with supplementary teaching material (7.4%). Students asked questions in 15.2% of courses, more often in surgery classes than in internal medicine. Conclusion Statistical and clinical topics relevant for teaching risk communication to medical students are not only underrepresented but also minimally explained by lecturers. Supplementary material on risk communication is rarely provided to students during classes. High-resource demanding, small-group teaching formats are not necessarily interactive as students ask few questions.