Volume 185 - Issue 1
How not to effect change in curricula
Authors: Bogda Koczwara, Michael B Barton, Martin H Tattersall, David R Turner, Ian N Olver and Darren L Starmer
Med J Aust 2006; 185 (1): 52. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00456.x
Published online: 3 July 2006
Published online: 3 July 2006
To the Editor: We read with interest two recent articles and an editorial on the state of medical education in Australia.1-3 As cancer clinicians and academics, and members of the Oncology Education Committee of the Cancer Council Australia, we have been following medical student education about cancer in Australia for almost 20 years and have learned first hand what is not sufficient to achieve change.
Highlighting the need: Cancer claims more lives than any other disease4 and is set to increase in incidence by 31% over the next decade,5 yet medical curricula devote little time to cancer education because of competition with other disciplines, historical precedent, personal preferences or just lack of teachers.
Developing a national curriculum: An ideal oncology curriculum,6 developed in Australia in 1999, has been endorsed by the International Union Against Cancer, yet has been taken up by a minority of medical schools in Australia. This is largely because of the lack of a national medical curriculum and the absence of a compliance mechanism through national credentialling.
Demonstrating deteriorating standards: A comparative study published in 2003 highlighted the fact that recent medical graduates had less exposure to cancer patients than those who graduated 11 years earlier, and that their knowledge was inferior.7
Evidently, community awareness, recommended curricula and evidence of system failure do not effect change. Why? Perhaps because, in the present system, curriculum content is divorced from medical outcomes. There is little or no feedback linking curricula to their consumers: medical students, postgraduate training programs and patients. The Australian Medical Council, the main accrediting body for medical curricula, is more concerned with process than content or outcomes. There is no national outcomes monitoring, nor an exit exam.8 No one knows whether students achieve desired outcomes. We do not even agree on what these are.
Outcomes of medical education must feed back to content and process. To do this, we must monitor outcomes nationally, provide feedback to medical schools and have mechanisms to effect change based on such feedback.
Without closing the loop, medical education seems to have some features of cancer: vigorous but uncontrolled growth, and uncertain outcome.
References
- McGrath BP, Graham IS, Crotty BJ, Jolly BC. Lack of integration of medical education in Australia: the need for change. Med J Aust 2006; 184: 346-348.
- Paltridge D. Prevocational medical training in Australia: where does it need to go? Med J Aust 2006; 184: 349-352. 0_pgfId-1117889
- Dahlenburg GW. Medical education in Australia: changes are needed [editorial]. Med J Aust 2006; 184: 319-320. 0_i1091804
- Australian Bureau of Statistics. Cancer in Australia: a snapshot. Canberra: ABS, 2004. (Catalogue No. 4822.0.55.001.) Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0e5fa1cc95cd093c4a25 68110007852b/8ddd5aed085834daca256f 010077be4a!OpenDocument (accessed May 2006).
- Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cancer incidence projections for Australia 2002–2011. Canberra: AIHW, 2005. (Catalogue No. CAN 25.) 0_i1091808
- Cancer Council Australia. Ideal oncology curriculum for medical schools. Sydney: Australian Cancer Society, 1999. Available at: www.cancer.org.au/documents/Ideal_Oncology_Curric_HI.pdf (accessed Apr 2006).
- Barton MB, Tattersall MH, Butow PN, et al. Cancer knowledge and skills of interns in Australia and New Zealand in 2001: comparison with 1990, and between course types. Med J Aust 2003; 178: 285-289. 0_i1091813
- Koczwara B, Tattersall MHN, Barton MB, et al. Achieving equal standards in medical student education: is a national exit examination the answer? Med J Aust 2005; 182: 228-230. 0_i1091817