|
|
ADF Archive Files : For Browse View Click Here
An Upheaval in Australian Medical Education
15 April 2006
Stephen Milgate
Executive Director, Australian Doctors' Fund
NB: This is a summary document
Please also see:
In response to growing concerns by its members and supporters within the ranks of the Australian medical profession and from significant numbers of medical students at Australian medical schools, the Australian Doctors' Fund convened a conference, entitled Rescuing Medical Education, on 18 February 2005.
Attendance and interest in the content of Australian medical education resulting from the announcement of the conference exceeded the expectations of the convenors.
Growing disquiet at the direction and content of Australian medical education now had a voice. No system is perfect or without its critics. Nevertheless, growing alarm over recent changes in medical education is significant and cannot be disregarded.
In our view, it is motivated by genuine concern about future standards and safety of medical practice and all that will mean to the next generation of doctors, their patients and the national interest.
This submission unashamedly presents the views of those who would not otherwise be heard in a debate on medical education: namely medical education academics, practitioners and students most of whom have not been consulted over the direction and content change in undergraduate medical curriculum.
We ignore their concerns at our peril.
Dr Bruce Shepherd
Chairman
Australian Doctors' Fund
The last decade has seen what could only be called an upheaval in the way medical students are educated at Australian universities. In 1998, new Deans were appointed to 8 of Australia's 10 medical schools . In March 2006 Australia had 17 medical schools, including 2 schools awaiting accreditation, with around 10,000 medical students. In April 2006 the Federal Government announced that Deacon University would open a medical school bringing the total to 18. In addition to a rapid expansion in medical student numbers the last decade has also seen changes in the selection process, student population profile, course structure, course content and teaching methods.
At a time when Australia is importing record numbers of doctors from overseas to staff our struggling public hospital system, educators have decided to delay the age at which Australian trained medical graduates can enter the medical workforce. This not only impacts on aggregate workforce productivity through loss of potential working years, but as Prof Paul Davies has indicated for physics and mathematics students "it carries the obvious danger that the students will be past their prime before they grasp the subject, let alone contribute to it ". The same may be said of our brightest and best medical students.
Not everyone is happy with the changes. There is a rising chorus of concern across the medical profession that not-so-young doctors are being expected to treat patients to the same standards as their predecessors, without exposure to the necessary amount of training in anatomy (dissection of the human body), physiology, biochemistry and pathology (especially post mortem examination).
This criticism could easily be dismissed as the bellow of dinosaurs, were it not so widespread and emanating from medical academics, clinical tutors and practising doctors who have no agenda other than their concern for public safety.
This submission provides substantive evidence of that concern and recommendations for improvement.
In March 2006 The Australian Doctors' Fund (ADF) surveyed 4,000 contributors (all qualified doctors) to find out what they believe an undergraduate medical curriculum should contain. Respondents were asked to rate their reaction to the questions on a 5 point scale from 'totally agree' to 'totally disagree'.
92.5% of respondents totally agreed with the proposition that all medical schools should graduate students of equivalent standards. 89.4% totally agreed that minimum tuition standards should be defined for the basic sciences of anatomy, physiology, histology, biochemistry, pharmacology, pathology and microbiology; and 89.4% totally agreed with the statement that a curriculum board should include medically qualified practising clinical tutors. When the columns of 'totally agree' and 'somewhat agree' are added together, the percentages are 98.6%, 99.1%, 98.6% respectively.
Most importantly, our medical students, despite considerable risk and difficulty are finding ways to express their frustration with aspects of their medical undergraduate programmes. (It appears that medical students have not been surveyed on a national basis to establish their views on the content and quality of their education, despite their considerable personal investment in its cost.) In March 2006 the ADF received a letter signed by concerned 3rd year medical students at a large Australian university medical school. The students explained their letter was not signed "for fear of the difficulties" that could be incurred in their 5th and 6th year if they went public. The letter is a cry for help over the content and teaching methods being used at their university (and many others). "During the first two years, an enormous amount of time was wasted on medical ethics and laws, non-specific teaching and community/social medicine. Whilst we believe that these subjects are important, surely it is better that we know the pathology behind an appendicitis, the anatomy of the appendix and surrounding organs, how it works normally and a good understand of antibiotics, rather than just being thrown onto the wards with little knowledge in this area". Concerning problem based learning, the students wrote "Whenever we ask them a question during a tute, they continually say, "Sorry, we are not allowed to tell you the answer, you have to go home and look it up", or, "The faculty have told me that I cannot teach you, so the answer is 'no'".
Our investigation into the justification for some of the major changes in Medical Education lead us to the same conclusion as the Editor of the Australian Medical Journal, Dr Martin B Van Der Weyden, who wrote as an editor's reply in the AMJ of 1 November 2004, "Forbes [Prof. Forbes] concedes that the evidence underpinning these changes to medical education is wanting. And herein lies the rub. Despite continued calls for educational research that matters (and perhaps in keeping with opinions as to how difficult performing such research might be), the medical education community has yet to report solid evidence to support the intentions of these resource-intensive changes. The profession, hardened by the evidence-based movement, expects no less".
The ADF asserts that there is sufficient evidence for a major rethink of the move away from basic sciences in medical undergraduate curriculum. The criticism of the application of problem based learning cannot be ignored. Whilst self directed learning is highly desirable, abandonment of a duty to teach and educate is not. Budgetary pressures may be behind some of the changes in course content and teaching methods rather than the high ideals of education.
In particular the disciplines of anatomy and pathology must be re-introduced to undergraduate medical education to ensure safe future medical practice.
The nonsensical restriction on PBL clinical tutors not being allowed to answer students' questions must be re-examined.
The Australian Doctors' Fund calls on the Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training to undertake such investigations as is required to assure herself and the Federal Government that Australian medical students are being equipped to adequately meet the clinical needs of the Australian population. An independent national survey of Australian Medical students would be a good starting point.
Perhaps the last word should go to a clinical tutor with over 30 years experience, "after 30 years of teaching I am occasionally appalled at some standards…….. Basic pathology knowledge is at a woeful low in my view and 5th and 6th year students are unable to tell me about the basics of pneumonia!!! Medicine has been taught with anatomy and pathology as a mainstay for centuries. It's time to go back to the basics. The students do not know basic Anatomy and Pathology. God help us when a final year student tells me he does not know where the scaphoid is!!!" It's time to seriously question the direction of Australian medical education. The ADF believes there is sufficient evidence that public safety and medical workforce productivity have been unnecessarily damaged by the wholesale adoption of changes that remain untested. Urgent action is required.
Stephen Milgate
Executive Director, Australian Doctors' Fund
|
Australian Doctors Fund |