Category: Building Community

Building Community: BMERG Journal Club Review, Co-learning and Co-teaching

Posted on by sarah.allsop

Contributing to our BMERG blog series on building community, our BMERG Journal Club lead Dr Claire Hudson reflects on the discussions at our journal club about co-learning and co-teaching.  

Paper reviewed: Claessen, Roy J M et al. “Co-learning and co-teaching in a newly introduced research learning community.” The clinical teacher vol. 21,3 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13683 

I really enjoyed discussing and reflecting on this paper. It captures what is great about our Journal Club; taking a small break in your day to chat about research with colleagues, and generating new ideas that could be applied to your own teaching practice at the same time! 

First, I’ll give an overview of the publication, followed by key takeaways from our discussion.  

What was the research?

The research is based within a Dutch Medical School, and the paper evaluates the move from traditional research project supervision (one-to-one) to a more collaborative model involving co-learning and co-teaching, something they call Research Learning Communities (RLCs). The format paired small groups of students with two teaching staff and a floating ‘research expert’ (visualised in one of the paper’s figures). This idea arose from the flip to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, however the emphasis of the paper is on collaborative, rather than online, learning.  

Before reading the full article, I checked a couple of definitions to ensure I fully understood their approach. Here they are, in case you are also unsure! 

  • Co-learning – breaching the traditional teacher-student hierarchy, and everyone is considered a learner. Knowledge is constructed together, with all participants contributing their expertise and experience. 
  • Co-teaching – multiple educators collaborating to plan and deliver teaching based on their different expertise. This enhances the student experience and supports ongoing professional development for staff. 

Essentially, the RLCs are a highly collaborative approach in which students learn from teachers, teachers learn from students, students learn from each other, and teachers also learn from each other – that’s a lot of learning! I really liked the idea and was keen to read on. 

What were the findings? 

The study assessed both student learning (in terms of research skills) and the perceived value of the collaborative learning. They collected research reports and reflections from students and conducted focus groups with both staff and students.  

Learning goals around research skills were met. Students found the structure supportive and valued peer-learning, reporting that they learned beyond their individual topic. Educators also reported that the structure supported their professional development and recognised benefits for students; although they were unsure whether the approach was time-efficient overall.  

Why did this study resonate?

The co-learning model mimics a real-world research team, supporting the development of teamworking and research skills in authentic contexts. Co-creation with students, peer-learning, and authentic learning align with current pedagogic trends, and also with the ‘student-centred’ pillar of our institutional education strategy. 

At the same time, there are ongoing discussions about reducing staff workload while maintaining the quality of teaching, plus an increased demand for research projects. The study sparked particular interest as it suggested ways to rethink research supervision while increasing authenticity.  

How could this model be applied or adapted for our own practice? 

Many features of this approach are already evident within teaching in the Bristol Medical School, such as case-based learning, group projects for ‘Student Choice’, and other small-group activities. After identifying these, we applied similar principles to research projects in both undergraduate and postgraduate contexts: 

  • Facilitating group themes: A group of students work on a broad, overarching theme, with students pursuing individual but linked research questions within that theme. The collaborative work could involve exploring the wider topic and co-creating individual sub-projects.  
  • Adjunctive research collaboratives: Alternatively, collaboratively learning groups could be created for students undertaking similar types of research (e.g. systematic review, data analysis or lab projects). The collaborative group would foster development of research skills, but the projects themselves could be different.  

Potential benefits:  

  • Multiple ‘supervisors’ and peer-interactions may improve student support and mitigate the common issue that some primary supervisors are less engaged than others….. 
  • I often find myself saying the same things again and again in one-to-one supervisory meetings with students—group formats could definitely reduce this inefficiency! 
  • Research projects can feel isolating and lonely for students, as they often involve extended periods of independent study. Collaborative models would introduce peer interaction and support. 

Additional reflections and comments 

Describing the activities: Details of the group activities were somewhat vague, at least to me. Specific examples of how a single research project was supported within the RLCs would help readers understand how this model could be applied. 

Inclusivity concerns: We questioned whether all students would benefit equally from this approach, or whether it inadvertently disadvantages more introverted students or those who prefer more structured guidance. 

The digital context: While the redesign was partially in response to COVID-19, the digital aspects were not well explored in the paper. 

Overall reflections

This paper invites us to explore co-learning and co-teaching in greater depth, and has already prompted me to generate ideas that could be integrated into my own teaching practice. The overall approach aligns well with contemporary trends in education and facilitated valuable conversations about sustainable and inclusive project supervision in higher education. 

If you already integrate collaborative elements into student research projects, I’d love to hear about your experiences and what works well for you! 

Author Biography  

Dr Claire Hudson is a Lecturer on the Teaching and Scholarship Pathway within the Bristol Medical School. Claire’s early research career was in biomedical sciences, but she has now made a transition to pedagogic research. She has a special interest in student autonomy and the use of reflective practice in developing academic and feedback literacy skills, as well as exploring MSc student skills development in different demographic groups. 

Building Community: BMERG Journal Club Review, Medical Education Research Labs

Posted on by sarah.allsop

The BMERG blog series on building community continues to grow, with a review of our recent journal club publication. Our BMERG Journal Club lead Dr Claire Hudson reflects on the discussion from our May journal club on the establishment of medical education research labs.

Paper reviewed: Gisondi, Michael A. et al. The Purpose, Design, and Promise of Medical Education Research Labs. Academic Medicine 97(9):p 1281-1288, September 2022. https://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/toc/2022/09000

Since my colleagues launched the Bristol Medical Education Research Group (BMERG), our discussions have focused on creating a productive research environment and increasing the impact of our work as education researchers.

Education research often struggles to get sufficient recognition and lucrative funding compared to basic and clinical sciences research, and many believe basic science research is held in higher esteem and more valued by their institutions.

This paper resonated with members of the BMERG Journal Club, as the authors echo some of these concerns and challenges.  The authors offer their perspective on the significance of medical education research labs and offer a practical roadmap for their establishment and success.

Publication overview

The paper falls under the category of ‘Scholarly Perspective’, and we discussed that it shouldn’t be interpreted as an objective literature review or primary research. The team of authors have presented a collection of case studies from their own experiences, identifying five main medical education research structures:

  • single principal investigator (PI) labs
  • multiple PI labs
  • research centres
  • research collaboratives
  • research networks

The contributors were assembled through existing professional relationships, therefore we questioned whether the categories presented fully reflect the entire range of medical education research structures. However, we accepted this was their ‘Scholarly Perspective’, and we think they effectively conveyed their vision for the future of medical education research, with research labs being central to this.

What is a medical education research lab?

This is an important question! The authors define a lab as,

A distinct team within a department or institution led by single or multiple PIs who focus on specific educational problems

Labs differ from larger research centres, collaboratives, and networks in their scale and scope. The paper provides illustrative case examples to demonstrate how different research structures function in practice, and we found this information both useful and well-presented. As all authors are based in the US, we questioned whether the same structures could be identified in the UK.

What are the benefits of an medical education research lab?

The authors outline several key elements that they consider contribute to the success of medical education research labs:

  1. Lab Identity: The lab should have a focussed line of research that can validate the career path of the PI(s).
  2. Lab designation: The ‘lab’ brand helps signal the importance and legitimacy of the research being conducted, since the lab structure is generally well-understood within medicine. The identity and designation together can attract collaborators, funding, and institutional support.
  3. Infrastructure: Proper infrastructure is crucial; and includes not only physical space and administrative support but also access to necessary research tools and technologies.
  4. Training: Research labs should serve as incubators for new talent. They should provide training and mentorship for students and junior staff, fostering the next generation of medical education researchers.

Did we agree?

Point 2. above on lab designation, sparked our next discussion: do we agree with using the term “lab” in the context of medical education?

We had an interesting debate about the appropriateness of making comparisons to a scientific research environment, and interestingly there was a split of opinion between our qualitative and quantitative colleagues!

We certainly didn’t agree that this nomenclature was essential for research legitimacy (as suggested by the authors), and we descended into brainstorming for other potential terminology for a collection of education researchers; “hub”, “village”, “incubator”, “collective” and even “tribe” were suggested!

Overall reflections

In summary, the authors present a compelling argument for the establishment of research labs as a means to overcome the challenges faced by medical education researchers; providing structured support, fostering collaboration, training new researchers, enhancing research productivity, and elevating the status of medical education research within academic institutions. The paper offers practical insights into the design of these labs, making it a useful resource for anyone involved in medical education research.  It would be interesting to find out more about whether the institutional barriers to establishing such groups are the same in the US as the UK, and within the BMERG Journal Club, we are still on the fence with the word ‘lab’!

More about this blog’s author:

Dr Claire Hudson is a Lecturer on the Teaching and Scholarship Pathway within the Bristol Medical School. Her early research career was in biomedical sciences, but she has now made a transition to pedagogic research. She has a special interest in student autonomy and the use of reflective practice in developing academic skills, as well as exploring MSc student skills development in different demographic groups.

Read more of our journal club reflections:

Conference Report: TICC 2024: The Inaugural CTF Conference, 5th April, Bristol

Posted on by sarah.allsop

The latest blog is a conference report celebrating the work of clinical teaching fellows across our region. Ed Luff reflects on this event and shares exciting plans for TICC 2025.

On Friday the 5th of April, the University of Bristol, in collaboration with BMERG, hosted TICC 2024: The Inaugural CTF Conference. TICC 2024 provided an opportunity to see and share the valued work of Clinical Teaching Fellows (CTFs) from across the region. Building on the successes of last year’s local CTF Conference for University of Bristol-affiliated CTFs, this year’s expanded meeting had presenters travelling from 10 organisations spanning Southern England, ranging from Surrey to Somerset.

The objectives of the conference were:

These objectives were excellently delivered through a combination of timetabled events on the day. This included two parallel streams of CTF presentations, comprising headline 20-minute showcase presentations, shorter 10-minute oral presentations and 3-minute e-Poster presentations, all with time for Q&A from the audience.

All 22 CTF presentations were extremely well received, and there was excellent engagement and discussion from the audience, highlighting the passion, interest and quality of the work presented. An intuitive electronic platform allowed delegates to provide feedback to presenters, which was shared with them following the conference. This approach to feedback facilitated further development of presentations prior to work being taken onto national or international conferences.

The day also included eight medical education-themed workshops, which attendees were able to choose from, across two parallel streams. These covered topics such as the future of undergraduate medical education, facilitating student-led medical education innovation, sculpting change, demystifying ethics, writing for publication, and the application of qualitative research to medical education. The day also included a showcase workshop presentation titled “From Innovation to Transformative Education”, highlighting how we can sustain and build on novel ideas and implement them into future practice in an educational setting.

One of the other highlights of this year’s expanded interinstitutional conference was a keynote address from Dr Jo Hartland, Senior Lecturer and Deputy Education Director at Bristol Medical School. They presented an account of their work in the field of Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion and shared reflections on their medical education journey to date, including their move from clinical work into medical education, policy work, and leadership.

All those involved in teaching or supporting medical students, whether clinical, academic, or administrative, were welcome to attend the conference. The day saw 63 delegates attend from a variety of backgrounds including those in academic and professional support roles, clinical staff, and educational roles.

On the day, the conference had a fantastic atmosphere, with much talk and networking amongst colleagues and peers regarding teaching, collaboration, innovation, and reflections on the past year as CTF. Energy levels were high, and although the programme was busy,  the variety and diversity of presentations, workshops and talks was extremely well received.

Prizes were awarded on the day for the best oral presentation and runner-up, scored on the day by senior academics and the conference committee; best e-poster presentation, voted on by conference delegates; and best social media post, decided by the organising committee. The prize winners can be viewed on the TICC conference 2024 page.

For more information and insight into what happened on the day, search X (formerly Twitter) for #TICC24 to find all the social media posts. If you would like to find out more information about what was happening on the day, or full details of the presentations that were delivered, please do have a look at the conference programme is available here:

TICC 2024 Programme

We will also be sharing all of the presentations that were delivered at TICC online, so if you couldn’t make it along but would like to review some of the amazing work that was presented, we will add a link to this post and to the TICC tab on the BMERG blog page.

Finally, we are excited to announce that TICC will return next year in a new and updated format! The new and revamped Teaching, Innovation, and Collaboration for CTFs Conference 2025 will take place on Friday 25th of April 2025. So make a note in your diaries, with more information to follow soon, and start sharing your excitement online by using #TICC25.

Building Community: BMERG Journal Club Review, Playful Learning

Posted on by sarah.allsop

The BMERG blog series on building community continues to grow, with our journal club meeting bi-monthly. This month our BMERG Journal Club lead Dr Claire Hudson reflects on the discussion from our March journal club on Playful Learning.

Paper reviewed: Macdonald I, Malone E, Firth R. How can scientists and designers find ways of working together? A case study of playful learning to co-design visual interpretations of immunology concepts. Studies in Higher Education. 2022;47(9):1980-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.2020745

I was intrigued by this paper for quite simple reasons; the terms ‘playful learning’ and ‘co-design’ grabbed my attention, as well as the reference to ‘scientists’. Although I am also an educator, I am a scientist at heart. Before everyone with a clinical background switches off, the paper actually discusses concepts that could apply to all disciplines, and it certainly provoked some fruitful discussion within our group.  

At the University of Bristol, we design our academic programmes to align with a Curriculum Framework, which includes a set of six interconnected dimensions that convey the educational aspirations of the University. Ideas of how to embed these dimensions within our teaching are always welcome, and this paper aligned with at least two of these dimensions: Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary (allowing students to engage beyond their discipline)and Inspiring and innovative (challenging, authentic and collaborative learning). So, I read this paper hoping to find some inspiration.

What was the research?

In summary, the authors designed an interdisciplinary activity with Biological Science students and Product Design students, aiming to communicate an immunology concept (for example allergies, vaccination or transplantation) using digital storytelling. Initially, the scientists pitched their immunology concepts to the designers, and then both sets of students took part in regular co-design workshops held in the design studios to create their final products. The researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with the students and collected Likert questionnaire data, to explore their “preconceptions, experience and future learnings of working in interdisciplinary groups”, analysed using thematic analysis.

What were the findings?

Four themes emerged from their research, summarised below:

1. The influence of environment –Being in the design studio fostered creativity in the Science students and developed different ways of thinking.

2. Playfulness as a creative approach –Freedom from assessment (this activity was outside of the curriculum) allowed for risk taking.

3. Storytelling as a means of expression –Translating information in a visual form enhanced understanding of the immunology material.

4. Recognition of the value of Interdisciplinary working – Relevance to authentic working relationships, exploiting individual strengths.

What did we think?

Limitations of the study

We did have some concerns about the study, such as not being explicit about the objectives and the possibility of confirmation bias. At the end of the introduction the authors state “This study aimed to use interdisciplinary co-design workshops to create opportunities for bringing scientists and designers to work together”; this may have been the purpose of the learning activity, but this didn’t explain the objectives of their research. What did they want to find out?

We discussed the limitations of case studies, however, we agreed that this type of study is useful to disseminate practice and generate ideas, provided the researchers are transparent about the wider relevance. We noted that the findings closely matched the themes presented in their introduction, thereby reconfirming previous assumptions rather than generating novel data, which led us to question the depth of the thematic analysis. This confirmation bias could also have arisen due to the nature of the sample; this was a voluntary task, and it is likely that the participating students were highly motivated. 

How could this be relevant to our own practice?

We all agreed that this was an interesting learning experience for the students, and I love hearing about novel ideas for communicating complex scientific concepts. Often, we retain and understand information with the use of a good metaphor, so perhaps we should all integrate more storytelling into our teaching!

However, since this activity was purely extra-curricular, how relevant is it? Do we really have the time/scope to create these opportunities ‘just for fun’? Creating a genuine interdisciplinary task within a curriculum seems challenging, with potential inter-Programme/School/Faculty logistics to navigate. Some of these perceived obstacles arise from imagining a summative task, however we all agreed that creating formative interdisciplinary tasks would be simpler; and in agreement with the authors, would allow students the freedom to experiment and be ‘playful’, stepping out of their comfort zones without being assessed. A great example of this freedom is the ‘creative piece’ produced by our medical students during year 1 Foundations of Medicine. Students are required to take part, but not awarded an explicit grade, which enables risk taking.

Overall reflections

This paper certainly sparked some great discussion about interdisciplinary and group working (clinical perfusion and medical students, medical and nursing students…), but how do we measure the benefit of such collaborations? At BMERG, our focus is turning these ideas into opportunities for research, so watch this space!

Read more of our journal club reflections:

BMERG Work: New Educator Profile

Posted on by sarah.allsop

This month’s highlighted Educator Profile is Dr Ed Luff

Ed is an Emergency Medical Doctor and Bristol Medical School graduate. His role is currently split between working as a Clinical Lecturer at Bristol Medical School and Speciality Teaching Fellow and Tutor at South Bristol Academy, based in the Bristol Royal Infirmary.

He is also finishing his MSc dissertation exploring students’ experiences and perceptions of using simulation as a method to teach human factors and non-technical skills, as part of his studies on the Health Professionals Education (TLHP) course.

Read more about Ed and some of our other Bristol Medical School Educators by visiting our: BMERG Educator and Researcher Profile Page

Building Community: Spotlight on the Incubator for Clinical Education Research

Posted on by sarah.allsop

This weeks BMERG blog is a spotlight on the Incubator for Clinical Educator Research (ClinEdR). Hosted by the University of Newcastle, the Incubator is an NIHR initiative launched in 2020 to develop ClinEdR as an academic field.

Image (c) UX Indonesia on Unsplash

What is the Incubator?

The mission and aim of the ClinEdR Incubator is to support and promote careers in clinical education research through building a multi-professional community of practice. It extends across all health professions and aims to bring people together to develop their ideas, build collaborations and provide a network of developing experience in the field.

What is Clinical Education Research?

This is one of the most fundamental questions and tends to have a myriad of different definitions and terms including clinical, medical, and healthcare professionals education research to name just a few. Often the word ‘clinical’ can drive the idea that this sort of research must have a direct impact in clinical practice and thus can seem to exclude certain areas of research in education.

The team at the Incubator have tried to broaden this idea, embracing all sorts of different research that can and does have an impact on societal health needs by “enhancing the education, training and development of health and social care practitioners, and the organisations within which they work and learn“. They highlight a number of different areas in which individuals and teams may be undertaking clinical education research such as:

  • Pedagogical research
  • Planning and design of educational programmes
  • Regulation processes
  • Organisation context of learning, such as learning environments and workforce inclusivity
  • Learner experience and careers

They also consider that this whilst this type of research may have a direct clinical impact for patients it may achieve impact in other ways such as benefiting clinicians in their training, influencing health and education systems and through challenging and developing standards.

How can the Incubator help those who want to engage in Clinical Education Research?

The incubator is a fantastic place to start regardless of where you are in your ClinEdR journey. It offers a variety of resource and links via it’s website such as:

So why not take a look at their resources, find out who works in ClinEdR in your area and sign up to be part of the growing Incubator network!

You can learn more about the Incubator at clinicaleducationresearch.org/ on Twitter/X at @ClinEdResearch or email the team at clinical.education.incubator@newcastle.ac.uk

BMERG work: Latest BMERG profiles

Posted on by sarah.allsop

This week’s blog is a reminder to check out the BMERG profiles pages. This is where we highlight some of our University of Bristol Medical Educators. They share their projects and their journeys to inspire others considering a career in Medical Education.

Our latest profile is Dr David Hettle, a passionate educator working as an Honorary Senior Clinical Teaching Fellow, alongside clinical training in Infectious Diseases and Microbiology. They are involved in work supporting and promoting educator development both locally and nationally through work with the Developing Medical Educators group (DMEG) of the Academy of Medical Educators.

Read more about David and some of our other educators: BMERG Educator and Researcher Profiles

Building Community: BMERG Journal Club, Cultural Competency

Posted on by sarah.allsop

Adding to our BMERG Journal Club series, this month Dr Claire Hudson reflects on the discussion from our January journal club focussing on Cultural Competency.

Liu, J., K. Miles, and S. Li, Cultural competence education for undergraduate medical students: An ethnographic study. Frontiers in Education, 2022. 7. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2022.980633/full

This paper was chosen by my colleague, Assoc. Prof Liang-Fong Wong, who has a combined interest in cultural competency and medical education, being Year 4 co-lead for our undergraduate MBChB programme and Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor for Internationalisation.  Both Liang and I are keen to develop our qualitative research skills, and at first glance, this paper seemed like an excellent example of a qualitative study.

What is ‘Cultural Competency’?

Liu et al suggest culturally competent healthcare professionals should “communicate effectively and care for patients from diverse social and cultural backgrounds, and to recognize and appropriately address racial, cultural, gender and other sociocultural relevant biases in healthcare delivery”; others have defined attributes of culture competency including “cultural awareness, cultural knowledge, cultural skill, cultural sensitivity, cultural interaction, and cultural understanding”. These concepts were explained effectively at the start of the paper; I felt the authors provided me with context for my subsequent reading.

What was the research?

The authors perceived that teaching of cultural competency is inconsistent across medical schools, and there is a paucity of evidence for how effective the teaching is, and how students actually develop their cultural competency throughout their training. They aimed to describe students’ experiences of learning and developing cultural competency, using an ethnographic approach. They carried out student observations, interviews and focus groups; recruiting participants from a central London medical school.

What were the findings?

There is a wealth of qualitative data and discussion presented in the paper, so perhaps the authors could summarise their overall findings in a clearer way. They suggest that students develop cultural competency in stages; in the pre-clinical years they have formal teaching opportunities, and as their clinical exposure increases, the culture content becomes embedded and derived from other learning experiences, including intercalation and placements.  They highlight the importance of learning from patients’ lived experiences, from peers and from other (non-medical) student communities.

What did we think?

  • Clear descriptions: I come from a quantitative, scientific background, therefore I find reading qualitative papers quite challenging; the terminology used is noticeably different and somewhat out of my ‘comfort zone’! Having said that, the authors very clearly explained the basis of ethnography and reflexivity, which really helped us understand the rationale for them adopting these approaches. Data collection and analysis were explained in detail which reassured us that these were robust and valid. However, thorough descriptions mean a long paper; and it could be more concise in places.
  • Awareness of limitations: A strength of this research was the authors’ transparency about some of its limitations. For example, they acknowledged a potential bias in participant recruitment due to the main author’s own cultural background, but described ways to mitigate this. We found it really interesting that the authors observed different dynamics in the interviews and focus groups depending on the facilitator. In those conducted by a PhD student, a rapport was built such that the students were relaxed and open with their communication, allowing them to be critical about the cultural competency teaching they had received. Conversely, in those conducted by a medical school academic, students were more reserved and tended to be positive about the teaching, highlighting an obvious teacher-student power dynamic. Importantly, this was acknowledged, and adjustments were made. Our biggest take-home message: Carefully consider who facilitates interviews and focus groups so there are no conflicts of interest, and trust is fostered between participants and researchers. Otherwise, students may just tell you what you want to hear!
  • Evaluation to recommendations: We also remarked that the authors have been clever in the way they present this study for publication. Essentially, they have carried out an internal evaluation of cultural competency teaching in their own medical school, but they have externalised this by making a series of recommendations. They benefit from a very diverse student population, and showcase some really good practice in cultural competency teaching which could be adopted by medical schools.

Overall reflections

Reading this paper made us reflect on non-clinical teaching on other programmes; it is important to remember that diverse student populations increase cultural awareness in all settings. Widening participation schemes and overseas students are important for this. During group work, I try to make the groups as diverse as possible, and I believe this is a positive experience.

The study highlighted different levels of engagement from students with cultural competency teaching, some thought it was ‘pointless’ as they were already culturally competent, or they thought the skills were ‘soft’ and would rather be learning facts, other found it really valuable. This is familiar when teaching other skills in other disciplines; the constant battle getting ‘buy-in’ from students, highlighting the need to always explain ‘Why’ certain teaching is important.

This study is a good showcase for qualitative research, and I made a mental note to refer back to this paper when developing my own qualitative research in the future; which must be a good sign!

Read our previous Journal club review on Self-regulated learning here: https://bmerg.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/2023/11/24/journal_club_publication_review1/

News: February’s featured BRMS Educator and Researcher is Dr Grace Pearson

Posted on by sarah.allsop

Have you seen our educator and researcher profile page? As part of our objective to ‘Innovate and Inspire’, this page is dedicated to showcasing not only the work of individuals working as educators and researchers in medical education at Bristol, but also a bit about their journey and their top tips for working in the discipline.

This month our featured educator is Dr Grace Pearson, a clinical lecturer and specialty doctor in Severn deanery.

Following her recent completion of a Ph.D. Fellowship in undergraduate education in geriatric medicine, Grace is actively innovating and evaluating geriatrics curricula on both local and national scales. This strategic approach ensures the continual enhancement of medical education in geriatric medicine.

To learn more about Grace’ Pearson’s work and that of other educators at Bristol Medical School, we invite you to explore their profiles on our BRMS Educator Profiles page.

Hot Topics in Medical Education Research: Interdisciplinary Medical Education – Learning Better Together

Posted on by sarah.allsop

In the second hot topics blog of 2024, Fiona Holmes considers the benefits and challenges of interdisciplinary learning. The inspiration for this came from teaching Clinical Perfusion Science students (clinical scientists who operate the heart-lung bypass during cardiac surgery) who come from different disciplinary backgrounds (bioscience/bioengineering and nursing/ODP), and who learn together and from each other and work as part of a complex multidisciplinary team.

Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash

What is IDL?

The World Health Organisation defines interdisciplinary learning (IDL) as ‘students from two or more professions learning about, from and with each other to enable effective collaboration and improve health outcomes’ and has stated that ‘interprofessional education and collaborative practice can play a significant role in mitigating many of the challenges faced by health systems around the world’.

What are the benefits of IDL?

Shared knowledge. Healthcare students face careers in increasingly complex healthcare systems where mutual understanding and integration of complementary expertise, communication, collaboration and decision making is key to comprehensive patient care and best outcomes. Medical issues and clinical situations often require a holistic understanding that goes beyond a single discipline; generalists and specialists need to work together. Practioners can’t know everything about everything!

Widened horizons. IDL can help students appreciate the interconnectedness of various factors important for patient care such as physiological, psychological, and social. IDL can expose students to different knowledge and perspectives such that they can analyse complex cases from different angles and integrate knowledge leading to more effective problem-solving in clinical settings. It can increase the ability to recognise bias, think critically and tolerate ambiguity.

Effective teamwork. IDL develops effective communication, collaboration and teamwork among healthcare professionals, important for delivering comprehensive and coordinated patient care. This can better prepare students for work in diverse healthcare settings and equip them with broader skills, enabling them to be more versatile and adaptable in their careers and enhancing their professional development.

Improved student experience. IDL can improve the student experience; by and large studies have shown that students express higher levels of engagement and satisfaction when exposed to IDL, which can contribute to improved learning outcomes.

How can IDL be implemented?

IDL can be incorporated into medical education in a number of ways, but to be effective it needs to be purposefully integrated into the curriculum and explicit in learning sessions (you can’t just throw students together and expect the learning to happen spontaneously). IDL lends itself to learning opportunities that can be designed to be authentic real-life situations such as:

  • Case-based learning (CBL) – students work together on case studies that require input from various professions to help them understand each other’s roles and contributions to patient care;
  • Simulated scenarios / role playing – students from different professions (or playing the role of different professions) collaborate to address the simulated patient’s needs, honing their teamwork and communication skills in a safe environment as well as understand the perspectives and responsibilities of each profession;
  • Interprofessional clinical experiences – students from various professions complete clinical placements together to expose them to the interprofessional dynamics of healthcare delivery in reality;
  • Team-based learning (e.g. clinical rounds) – students discuss patient cases and treatment plans collaboratively (builds upon CBL);
  • Interprofessional workshops/projects – bring students from various disciplines together to collaborate and develop solutions for healthcare challenges;
  • Reflective practices – such as team debriefing sessions and individual reflective journals to contemplate experiences, challenges, insights and opportunities for improvement, with a focus on the IDL.

What are the challenges of IDL?

Resource implications. Implementing IDL can pose logistical and resourcing (appropriately skilled staff – ideally interprofessional team teaching, time, costs) challenges; it can be difficult to coordinate curricula and schedules to bring different healthcare students together at appropriate time in their educational journey.

Timing. The jury is out as to when is the best time to implement IDL and for how long (e.g., periodic exposure or continuous immersion). Ideally team dynamics need time to develop, so communication becomes more open and collaborative, with trust and appreciation of diversity of knowledge.

Experience levels. While the point of IDL is to bring together diverse students for learning, there may be issues associated with this such as: Learner-level matching (do they have sufficient background knowledge and experience to work together effectively?); differences in learning preferences may be more exaggerated due to prior teaching and learning experiences; epistemics (the disciplinary ideas about what knowledge is and how to use and produce knowledge) and specific manner of communication are part of the culture of particular disciplines that may hinder IDL.

Perceptions and Biases. Perceptual barriers in competence perceptions may lead to a lack of self-confidence or respect for co-learners and personal characteristics such as curiosity, respect, and openness, patience, diligence, and self-regulation have been suggested to be important characteristics for enabling cognitive advancement in IDL.

Measures of impact. Evaluating the effectiveness of IDL can be challenging. Traditional assessment methods may not adequately capture the depth and breadth of knowledge, behaviour and attitudes or ‘interdisciplinary thinking and doing’ – i.e., the capacity to integrate knowledge and ways of thinking and doing across areas of expertise to produce a better outcome than could be achieved otherwise.

Future Research

While the general consensus is that IDL should be an integral part of the curriculum for healthcare students, the importance of IDL is largely based on theory and there remains a lack of large, multi-centre long-term studies. Therefore, currently it is unclear what strategies are best for long-term behaviour change and positive patient outcomes.

Some additional further reading:

Attitudes towards Interprofessional education in the medical curriculum: a systematic review of the literature | BMC Medical Education | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)

Experiential Learning of Interdisciplinary Care Skills in Surgery Assessed From Student Reflections – ScienceDirect

Interprofessional team-based learning (TBL): how do students engage? | BMC Medical Education | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)

Interdisciplinary education affects student learning: a focus group study | BMC Medical Education | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)