scholarly journals It’s important, but not important enough: eHealth as a curriculum priority in medical education in Australia

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (10) ◽  
pp. 697-702 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sisira Edirippulige ◽  
Peter Brooks ◽  
Colin Carati ◽  
Victoria A Wade ◽  
Anthony C Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis ◽  
Medical Curriculum ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Medical Schools ◽  
Education And Training ◽  
External Pressure ◽  
Information And Communications Technology ◽  
Systemic Problems ◽  
And Training

Information and communications technology has become central to the way in which health services are provided. Technology-enabled services in healthcare are often described as eHealth, or more recently, digital health. Practitioners may require new knowledge, skills and competencies to make best use of eHealth, and while universities may be a logical place to provide such education and training, a study in 2012 found that the workforce was not being adequately educated to achieve competence to work with eHealth. We revisited eHealth education and training in Australian universities with a focus on medical schools; we aimed to explore the progress of eHealth in the Australian medical curriculum. We conducted a national interview study and interpretative phenomenological analysis with participants from all 19 medical schools in Australia; two themes emerged: (i) consensus on the importance of eHealth to current and future clinical practice; (ii) there are other priorities, and no strong drivers for change. Systemic problems inhibit the inclusion of eHealth in medical education: the curriculum is described as ‘crowded’ and with competing demands, and because accrediting bodies do not expect eHealth competence in medical graduates, there is no external pressure for its inclusion. Unless and until accrediting bodies recognise and expect competence in eHealth, it is unlikely that it will enter the curriculum; consequently the future workforce will remain unprepared.

scholarly journals Resisting the tick box culture: refocusing medical education and training

2014 ◽  
Vol 64 (625) ◽  
pp. 422-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Cleland ◽  
Joanne Reeve ◽  
Joe Rosenthal ◽  
Peter Johnston
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Education And Training ◽  
Medical Education And Training ◽  
And Training

scholarly journals Questioning the Scope of AI Standardization in Learning, Education, and Training

2020 ◽  
pp. 107-122
Author(s):  
Jon Mason ◽  
Bruce E. Peoples ◽  
Jaeho Lee
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Mixed Reality ◽  
Hot Spot ◽  
Learning Experience ◽  
Education And Training ◽  
Information And Communications Technology ◽  
Offline Learning ◽  
Human Ethics ◽  
And Training

Well-defined terminology and scope are essential in formal standardization work. In the broad domain of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) the necessity is even more so due to proliferation and appropriation of terms from other fields and public discourse – the term ‘smart’ is a classic example; as is ‘deep learning’. In reviewing the emerging impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on the field of Information Technology for Learning, Education, and Training (ITLET), this paper highlights several questions that might assist in developing scope statements of new work items.While learners and teachers are very much foregrounded in past and present standardization efforts in ITLET, little attention has been placed until recently on whether these learners and teachers are necessarily human. Now that AI is a hot spot of innovation it is receiving considerable attention from standardization bodies such as ISO/IEC, IEEE and pan-European initiatives such as the Next Generation Internet. Thus, terminology such as ‘blended learning’ necessarily now spans not just humans in a mix of online and offline learning, but also mixed reality and AI paradigms, developed to assist human learners in environments such as Adaptive Instructional Systems (AIS) that extend the scope and design of a learning experience where a symbiosis is formed between humans and AI. Although the fields of LET and AI may utilize similar terms, the language of AI is mathematics and terms can mean different things in each field. Nonetheless, in ‘symbiotic learning’ contexts where an AIS at times replaces a human teacher, a symbiosis between the human learner and the AIS occurs in such a way where both can exist as teacher and learner. While human ethics and values are preeminent in this new symbiosis, a shift towards a new ‘intelligence nexus’ is signalled where ethics and values can also apply to AI in learning, education, and training (LET) contexts. In making sense of the scope of standardization efforts in the context of LET based AI, issues for the human-computer interface become more complex than simply appropriating terminology such as ‘smart’ in the next era of standardization. Framed by ITLET perspectives, this paper focuses on detailing the implications for standardization and key questions arising from developments in Artificial Intelligence. At a high level, we need to ask: do the scopes of current LET related Standards Committees still apply and if not, what scope changes are needed?

Allergy teaching is suboptimal and heterogeneous in the undergraduate medical curriculum in the UK

2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 221-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Frances Reid ◽  
Mamidipudi Thirumala Krishna ◽  
Claire Bethune
Keyword(s):  
Medical Curriculum ◽  
Medical Schools ◽  
British Society ◽  
Undergraduate Teaching ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Online Questionnaire ◽  
Similar Survey ◽  
The Uk ◽  
And Training

AimTo record the level of allergy teaching occurring in UK medical schools. The UK has experienced an ‘allergy epidemic’ during the last 3–4 decades. Previous government reviews have emphasised the importance of allergy education and training, treating common allergies in primary care with referral pathways to a specialist and the creation of regional networks. It is acknowledged that the delivery of allergy teaching in UK medical schools is variable, despite the well-recognised need.MethodsAll consultant members of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology involved in teaching medical students were invited to partake in qualitative research, employing an online questionnaire for data collection. Participants were asked to comment on the format of the allergy teaching delivered, the student participation and the clinical opportunities provided. Students were recruited to complete a similar survey as supporting evidence.Results44 responses were collected, representing 64.7% of medical schools in the UK. Clinical allergy placements were compulsory in 31.8% of medical schools that responded. In 36.4%, it was reported that less than 10% of students had an opportunity to take an independent history from a patient with allergic disease, or practise using an epinephrine autoinjector. 90.9% responded that an allergy rotation was not offered to final year students.ConclusionsAllergy undergraduate teaching is suboptimal and heterogeneous in UK medical schools and there is a real need for standardisation as a means to enhance quality of care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document