The development of core learning outcomes relevant to clinical practice: identifying priority areas for genetics education for non-genetics specialist registrars.
ABSTRACT Advances in medical genetics are increasingly impacting on clinical practice outside specialist genetic services. It is widely acknowledged that physicians will need to use genetics knowledge and skills in order to incorporate these advances into patient care. In order to determine priority areas for genetics education for non-genetics specialist registrars, an educational needs assessment was undertaken. Consultants from cardiology, dermatology, neurology and genetics identified genetics knowledge, skills and attitudes required by non-genetics specialty trainees. From these, and informed by trainees' views of genetic education, six genetics learning outcomes that non-genetics medical specialty trainees should attain by the end of their training have been identified, each linked to core knowledge, skills and attitudes. These core concepts can be taught with reference to specialty-specific conditions to highlight their relevance to clinical practice. The results of this study are informing the genetic component of postgraduate medical training curricula.
- SourceAvailable from: Peter Farndon[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Advances in medical genetics are increasingly being incorporated into clinical management outside specialist genetic services. This study was therefore undertaken to develop learning outcomes in genetics for general practice specialty training, using methods to ensure the knowledge, skills, and attitudes relevant to genetics in primary care were identified. To identify key knowledge, skills, and attitudes in genetics and to synthesise these into learning outcomes to assist training in genetics for primary care. Delphi survey and review by expert group. Primary care practices and Regional Genetics Centre in the West Midlands region of the UK. A modified Delphi survey involved GP trainers, programme directors, and geneticists (n = 60). The results, along with results from a survey of GP registrars, were reviewed by an expert group, which included GPs, geneticists, and educationalists. Core genetics topics for GPs were identified, prioritised, and developed into competency statements in the style of the curriculum structure of the Royal College of General Practitioners. The development of the GP curriculum statement Genetics in Primary Care was based on a study of educational needs, incorporating the views of practitioners (GP trainers, programme directors, and registrars) and specialists (clinical geneticists). This inclusive approach has enabled the identification of learning outcomes which directly reflect clinical practice.British Journal of General Practice 03/2009; 59(559):99-103. DOI:10.3399/bjgp09X395094 · 2.36 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Lack of knowledge among clinicians regarding pharmacogenetics is often cited as one of the barriers delaying its clinical uptake, albeit there are many other, more crucial aspects that impede the implementation of pharmacogenetics into routine medical practice. Pharmacogenetics has been incorporated to the MD teaching curriculum at the Tel Aviv University Faculty of Medicine (Tel Aviv, Israel) since 2001 and offered as an elective class for graduate students since 2003. I share here my pharmacogenetics teaching experience over the past decade and look forward to 2020 when - hopefully - the use of pharmacogenetics tools will have become more established in routine clinical care.Pharmacogenomics 05/2010; 11(5):647-9. DOI:10.2217/pgs.10.30 · 3.43 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: As advances in genetics are becoming increasingly relevant to mainstream healthcare, a major challenge is to ensure that these are integrated appropriately into mainstream medical services. In 2003, the Department of Health for England announced the availability of start-up funding for ten 'Mainstreaming Genetics' pilot services to develop models to achieve this. Multiple methods were used to explore the pilots' experiences of incorporating genetics which might inform the development of new services in the future. A workshop with project staff, an email questionnaire, interviews and a thematic analysis of pilot final reports were carried out. Seven themes relating to the integration of genetics into mainstream medical services were identified: planning services to incorporate genetics; the involvement of genetics departments; the establishment of roles incorporating genetic activities; identifying and involving stakeholders; the challenges of working across specialty boundaries; working with multiple healthcare organisations; and the importance of cultural awareness of genetic conditions. Pilots found that the planning phase often included the need to raise awareness of genetic conditions and services and that early consideration of organisational issues such as clinic location was essential. The formal involvement of genetics departments was crucial to success; benefits included provision of clinical and educational support for staff in new roles. Recruitment and retention for new roles outside usual career pathways sometimes proved difficult. Differences in specialties' working practices and working with multiple healthcare organisations also brought challenges such as the 'genetic approach' of working with families, incompatible record systems and different approaches to health professionals' autonomous practice. 'Practice points' have been collated into a Toolkit which includes resources from the pilots, including job descriptions and clinical tools. These can be customised for reuse by other services. Healthcare services need to translate advances in genetics into benefits for patients. Consideration of the issues presented here when incorporating genetics into mainstream medical services will help ensure that new service developments build on the body of experience gained by the pilots, to provide high quality services for patients with or at risk of genetic conditions.BMC Health Services Research 05/2010; 10(1):125. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-10-125 · 1.66 Impact Factor