Finding a Common Language for Patient Safety in CKD

Healthcare professionals’ education is evolving to meet people’s needs towards a more comprehensive, collaborative and interdisciplinary training. In medical education in Argentina, in the context of international discussions around competence-based education (CBE), competence frameworks are being developed for undergraduate and postgraduate education, constituting agreed criteria that lead to the design of training programs and work as key tools to ensure educational quality. The Tuning Project and other international frameworks account for this process towards a common definition of standards beyond geographic and disciplinary boundaries. Generic competences (GCs) have acquired increased relevance in CBE discussions, whereas in medical education they involve key skills for patient safety – yet clarity in their implementation still has to be accomplished. In competence-based medical education (CBME), some changes are being hindered by the absence of a common language as well as diverging ideologies and theories. The purpose of this work was to explore conceptions and the terms used when referring to GCs by people in charge of educational planning and design of Human Resources (HR) training policies in Argentina. A qualitative informants from different levels and fields in medical education. Interviews were conducted by one interviewer and analysed by two independent researchers. Results showed that medical educational planners have different conceptions regarding GCs and fail to share a common language to enunciate them. They acknowledge their relevance for patient safety and agree with the notion that, at this time of educational transformation, it would be useful to enunciate them separately from specific competences, although they realise that this involves potential risks in curricular design. From all terms used in this regard, “generic competence” was identified as a contradiction in itself. Consensus on denomination, meaning and visibility in curricula is mandatory.Received: 26 April 2018Accepted: 18 May 2018Published online: 31 May 2018

Download Full-text

Standardization of Dysphagia Diet Terminology across the Lifespan: An International Perspective

Perspectives on Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia) ◽

10.1044/sasd23.4.166 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 23 (4) ◽

pp. 166-172 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Julie A.Y. Cichero

Keyword(s):

Patient Safety ◽

International Perspective ◽

Clinical Impact ◽

Professional Communication ◽

Common Language ◽

Thickened Liquids ◽

Standardized Terminology ◽

Research Scientists ◽

International Initiative

Dysphagia as a field is within its third decade. As part of the progress of any field, specialist terminology is developed to improve efficiencies of communication and remove ambiguity. The most commonly reported benefits of standardized terminology include improvements in patient safety, and enhanced inter and intra-professional communication. Indeed standardized terminology reaches further than clinical impact, providing research scientists with a common language for reporting research that will cyclically go on to have a clinical impact. Although there are many benefits to standardized terminology, there are also challenges and barriers. There are a number of areas where the field of dysphagia could benefit from standardized terminology. The focus of this paper is on one of the corner stones of dysphagia intervention, that of the language used to describe thickened liquids and texture modified foods. This paper outlines the benefits and challenges of standardization and describes the rationale for an international initiative to develop global definitions and terminology for texture modified foods and thickened liquids suitable across the age span, care settings, and cultures. Early involvement of all stakeholders and robust discussion is critical to the success of developing standardized terminology.

Download Full-text