Medical education

Non-academic personal qualities are also desirable in doctors: higher mental abilities, empathy, ethics, creativity

David A Powis · Don Munro · Miles R Bore

In health care, we now need to be curators and disseminators of accurate and timely information, not solely producers, this includes digital sources

Rebecca A Szabo

Objectives: To assess whether the change from the Undergraduate Medical and Health Sciences Admissions Test (UMAT; 1991–2019) to the University Clinical Aptitude Test (UCAT) for the 2020 New South Wales undergraduate medical degree intake was associated with changes in the impact of sex, socio‐economic status and remoteness of residence, and professional coaching upon selection for interview. Design, setting, participants: Cross‐sectional study of applicants for the three NSW undergraduate medical programs for entry in 2019 (4114 applicants) or 2020 (4270); 703 people applied for both intakes. Applicants selected for interview were surveyed about whether they had received professional coaching for the selection test. Main outcome measures: Scores on the three sections of the UMAT (2019 entry cohort) and the five subtests of the UCAT (2020 entry); total UMAT and UCAT scores. Results: Mean scores for UMAT 1 and 3 and for all four UCAT cognitive subtests were higher for men than women; the differences were statistically significant after adjusting for age, socio‐economic status, and remoteness. The effect size for sex was 0.24 (95% CI, 0.18–0.30) for UMAT total score, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.32–0.44) for UCAT total score. For the 2020 intake, 2303 of 4270 applicants (53.9%) and 476 of 1074 interviewees (44.3%) were women. The effect size for socio‐economic status was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.39–0.54) for UMAT, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.35–0.50) for UCAT total score; the effect size for remoteness was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.45–0.63) for UMAT, 0.48 (95% CI, 0.39–0.58) for UCAT total score. The impact of professional coaching on UCAT performance was not statistically significant among those accepted for interview. Conclusions: Women and people from areas outside major cities or of lower socio‐economic status perform less well on the UCAT than other applicants. Reviewing the test and applicant quotas may be needed to achieve selection equity.

Barbara Griffin · Graeme L Horton · Lisa Lampe · Boaz Shulruf · Wendy Hu

Objectives: To evaluate whether educating junior doctors and hospital pharmacists about analgesic prescribing improved discharge prescribing of opioids for opioid‐naïve patients after surgical admissions. Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial, undertaken during the first half of 2019. Setting: The Alfred Hospital, a major Melbourne teaching hospital with 13 surgical units. Participants: Opioid‐naïve patients discharged from surgical units after a stay of at least 24 hours. Intervention: Surgical units were randomised to the intervention or control arms. Interns, residents, and clinical pharmacists assigned to intervention arm units attended education sessions, presented by the hospital analgesic stewardship pharmacist, about appropriate analgesic prescribing for patients in hospital surgical units. Main outcome measures: The patients prescribed slow release opioids on discharge from hospital during the baseline (1 February – 30 April 2018) and post‐intervention periods (17 February – 30 April 2019). Results: During the baseline period, 1369 intervention unit and 1014 control unit admissions were included in our analysis; during the evaluation period, 973 intervention unit and 706 control unit episodes were included. After adjusting for age, length of stay, pain score, acute pain service involvement, and use of immediate release opioids prior to admission, patients in the intervention group were prescribed slow release opioids at discharge less frequently than patients in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35–0.77) and were more frequently discharged without any prescribed opioids following the intervention (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.24–2.30). Providing de‐escalation plans was more frequent for intervention than control group patients prescribed slow release opioids on discharge post‐intervention (OR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.25–4.45). Conclusions: Specific education for clinicians and pharmacists about appropriate analgesic prescribing for surgical patients is effective in reducing prescribing of opioids at discharge. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618000876291 (prospective).

Ria E Hopkins · Thuy Bui · Alex H Konstantatos · Carolyn Arnold · Dianna J Magliano · Danny Liew · Michael J Dooley

Australia has relied, for most of its history, on international medical graduates (IMGs) to supplement its workforce. Since 1978, IMGs applying for general registration to practise in Australia have usually needed to pass the examinations of the Australian Medical Examining Council, or since 1986, its successor, the Australian Medical Council (AMC). The AMC provides several pathways to registration by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). The route now termed “the standard pathway” consists of a two‐part assessment including a multiple choice question (MCQ) examination followed by a clinical examination. While most IMGs are required to pass both examinations, since 2007, IMGs who qualified in the so‐called competent authority countries (the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States and Canada) have usually not been required to sit these examinations.1 The examinations have sometimes provoked controversy and political responses in various forms.2,3,4 Partly in reaction to these, but mainly through an internal process of continuous improvement, their formats have been adapted considerably over the 42‐year period. The MCQ examination assesses “basic and applied medical knowledge across a wide range of topics,” and since 2000, its pass mark has been set using item response theory.5,6 The original clinical examination used short cases and viva voces; in 2004, this was replaced by a 16‐station objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). The standard of both examinations is set at that “of newly qualified graduates of Australian medical schools who are about to commence intern training”.6 The last account of the demographic features of candidates attempting the examinations and their performance was provided in 2010.5 Now, a decade later, there have been striking changes in both these parameters, which we document and evaluate in this article. A further aim was to identify some demographic or candidate factors that might influence examination success. Source of data De‐identified information about candidates who took the MCQ and clinical examinations of the Australian Medical Examining Council and AMC, from their inception in 1978 until October 2019, were provided by the Council. It included the country and year of primary medical qualification, gender, year of birth, years of first attempt and success, and number of attempts for each candidate. From this information, we calculated the numbers of candidates, numbers of attempts, the success rate per attempt, and the proportion eventually achieving success each year. To examine the contributions of individual countries, results were aggregated into decades. Countries of training were also consolidated into regions, according to the United Nations geographical regions report, last updated in 1999 (Supporting information, table 1).7 Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (ID: 1750338.3). Demographic features of candidates Over the 42‐year period, a total of 35 699 candidates from 153 countries sat the MCQ examination, 16 588 (46.7%) of whom were female (Box 1). The median age of all candidates at their first MCQ attempt was 32 years (interquartile range [IQR], 28–37 years; range, 20–73 years). The clinical examination was attempted by 20 494 candidates. Their demographic features were similar to that of the candidates for the MCQ. Box 1 shows the number of candidates for the MCQ and clinical examination for the top ten countries of primary medical qualification at each examination. The data for countries grouped by UN region are provided in the online Supporting information, table 1, and data for candidates from all individual countries (except those with very few candidates) are provided in the online Supporting information, table 2. South Asia was the region contributing most candidates, with just under half the total — predominantly graduates from India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Next in order were those from South‐East Asia and North Africa. Candidate performance From a low base until about the year 2000, there was a marked increase in candidates attempting each examination, reaching a peak in 2009 for the MCQ and 4 years later for the clinical examination (Box 2 and Box 3). Although the candidate numbers declined slightly after these peaks, they remained almost fourfold higher than in 2000. The pass rate at each attempt in the MCQ examination fluctuated, with most year‐to‐year variations not reaching statistical significance. However, overall pass rates per attempt increased over time, from a low of 28% in 1987 to a high of 66% in 2018. Some candidates showed great persistence: 86 attempted the examination ten or more times. As with the MCQ examination, the pass rate in the clinical examination increased between the 1980s and the 2000s, reaching a peak of 64% in 2007. However, between 2011 and 2012 it fell by more than 10%, followed by a further decline; and for the past 5 years (excepting 2019 when data were incomplete), it has remained just above 30%. Nevertheless, most candidates who persevered managed to pass after one or two further attempts. As with the MCQ, there were a few who found it much more difficult. Five or more attempts were made by 621 candidates (3.0%), 144 of whom have not yet succeeded. Pass rates by individual country are provided in the Supporting information, table 3. In the MCQ, during the past three decades, women had a higher pass rate per attempt and overall, although the magnitude of the difference (about 3%) was small (Box 4). In the clinical examination since 1990, women had both a higher pass rate and fewer attempts. In the most recent decade, the difference in pass rates was substantial (+12%). Box 5 and Box 6 show the pass rates in the MCQ and clinical examinations, respectively, graphed against candidates’ age and the interval (recency) since their medical graduation. There was a marked decline in success with both increasing age and interval since graduation; this was more marked in the clinical examination. While the number of candidates who were 55 years or older was small (245; 1.2% of total), their pass rate was one‐third that of candidates aged 20–29 years, and only 45% of the older group eventually passed. Commentary Before 2000, the number of IMGs attempting AMC examinations annually was usually less than 300 and never exceeded 600. However, between 2000 and 2018, candidate numbers increased more than threefold to an annual mean of 1003 during a period when the number of all Australians born overseas increased only from 4.5 to 7.3 million.8 Some factors likely to have contributed to the increase in candidates were removal in 1998 of the requirement to be an Australian citizen, and offering the computer‐delivered MCQ examination from 2005 in several centres outside Australia. A further increase in candidates for the MCQ examination resulted from the 2006 decision by the Council of Australian Governments that all IMGs with limited or temporary registration with the individual state medical boards should pass that examination. The peak in attempts at the clinical examination in 2013 followed the establishment of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme in July 2010 and the requirement that limited registrants (non‐specialists) demonstrate progress towards full registration (including passing the AMC clinical examination where applicable). It is important to note that these data are specific to those sitting the AMC examinations. They give only a partial picture of medical immigration over this period. Firstly, they do not include IMGs who were registered as specialists by the various states, and subsequently by AHPRA on advice from specialist colleges. Secondly, until 1992 the Medical Acts in all Australian states allowed graduates from the UK (and usually Ireland) exemption from the need for further examination. For the next 15 years, generalists from those countries usually had to take the AMC examinations, but from 2007 they were again exempted (along with IMGs from Canada and the US) when the AMC introduced the competent authority pathway. The overall success rate in the MCQ examination increased significantly from the 1980s. The AMC made several changes over that time to increase reliability and fairness. One was altering question types to formats less dependent on English language skill; another was publication of annotated question banks to assist candidates in their preparation.5,6,9 From 2000, the pass mark has been set by criterion‐referenced methodology. A further refinement from 2011 was administering the MCQ examination in computer‐adaptive format, where the difficulty of items is adjusted in real time according to a candidate's performance, considered to increase fairness and precision.10 A factor likely to have contributed to the recent lower pass rate in the clinical examination (Box 3) is the removal of nearly all candidates from the competent authority countries. Up till 2009, UK graduates had the highest pass rate in this examination (Supporting information, table 3), and their removal from the pool would inevitably lower the overall rate. However, the decline since 2010 cannot be fully accounted for by this since competent authority candidates comprised less than 10% of the 2000–2009 total. Thus, other factors affecting the most recent cohorts of candidates (eg, the changing mix of parent countries) are likely to have contributed. Many IMGs must often overcome hurdles less likely to be faced by those from competent authority countries. These include adapting to an unfamiliar health system, developing fluency in English, preparing for the examinations while under time pressure from short‐stay visas, and needing to support themselves with sometimes long hours of work outside the health system.11 It is possible, though, that changes in the format or content of the OSCE have also contributed. The differences between the results for women and men in the MCQ should not be overplayed, since the magnitude was small. Others have found little gender effect in postgraduate written examinations in the UK and the US.12,13 However, the outperformance by women in the clinical examination, particularly in the past decade, is more striking. Those findings have been seen elsewhere. Women perform better than men in Step 2 of the United States Medical Licensing Examination.14 Female overseas‐trained doctors were twice as likely as males to pass the UK Federation of Royal Colleges of Physicians’ Practical Assessment of Clinical Examination Skills (PACES) at their first attempt.15 The PACES examination has many similarities to the AMC OSCE, with communication skills important for both. Female superiority in patient–doctor communication has been documented previously,16 and may partly explain the present findings. That performance in the MCQ deteriorated with both age and time since graduation is not entirely surprising: the examination tests knowledge in all domains of medicine, including some of the basic sciences. The longer since these were studied, the more difficult it might be to pass questions based on them, especially for IMGs who had practised as specialists in their original country. More unexpected was the much lower performance in the clinical examination by older candidates. Clinical experience might have been expected to give them an advantage, but this does not appear to have been generally so. We have been unable to find exactly comparable data from medical licensing examinations in other countries. A UK retrospective analysis observed that international graduates aged more than 37 years actually performed better in a postgraduate paediatric examination.17 However, a US analysis noted a negative correlation between age when first certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Surgery and subsequent success in maintenance of certification examinations.18 Since 1978, these examinations have played an important role in informing the credentialing of generalist IMGs by state medical boards and now the national board. This article has documented substantial changes over the four decades in the demography of candidates, and some factors that were associated with their success in the examinations. The information will be of interest to health planners, but more particularly to those IMGs who have passed through the process and others who are contemplating it. Many rural health services still struggle to meet their workforce needs and rely heavily on doctors who have migrated to practise medicine here.19 Australia continues to owe a debt to its immigrant doctors. Box 1 – Multiple choice question (MCQ) and clinical examinations: numbers of candidates, top ten countries* Country of training 1978–1989 1990–1999 2000–2009 2010–2019 Total MCQ examination India 351 496 2619 2483 5949 Pakistan 32 113 1007 1838 2990 Sri Lanka 159 246 1005 1394 2804 Egypt 179 356 375 1171 2081 Bangladesh 16 99 777 1107 1999 Iran 32 34 664 1197 1927 Philippines 83 182 646 714 1625 China 4 219 641 745 1609 Myanmar 21 66 485 772 1344 Iraq 8 160 420 602 1190 Total all countries 1864 3859 12 722 17 254 35 699 Clinical examination India 190 392 1059 2074 3715 Sri Lanka 101 194 399 960 1654 Pakistan 13 59 342 1168 1582 Bangladesh 7 53 483 831 1374 Iran 8 27 263 688 986 China 0 109 398 475 982 Egypt 78 296 195 375 944 Myanmar 5 45 175 661 886 Philippines 11 104 198 507 820 Iraq 2 85 303 358 748 Total all countries 897 2588 5806 11 203 20 494 * By total number of candidates. Data are listed by the year each candidate first attempted the examination. Many candidates made multiple attempts. International medical graduates trained in the United Kingdom and Ireland were exempted from the Australian Medical Council examinations by most states until 1992. Since 1997, few candidates from the competent authority countries (UK, Ireland, Canada and the United States) were required to take the examinations. Box 2 – Number of candidates and success rate per attempt in the multiple choice question examinations since 1978, and total number of attempts by candidates each year* * Data for 2019 truncated at October. Box 3 – Number of candidates, success rate per attempt and total attempts in the clinical examinations since 1978, and total number of attempts by candidates each year* * Data for 2019 truncated at October. Box 4 – Influence of gender on examination success* Period Gender N Total attempts Total passes Mean (SD) attempts Pass total (%) Pass/attempt (%) MCQ examination 1978–1989 Female 568 1299 412 2.29 ± 1.84 72.5% 31.7% Male 1142 2431 817 2.13 ± 1.68 71.5% 33.6% 1990–1999 Female 1691 3279 1434 1.95 ± 1.57 84.8% 43.7% Male 2164 4275 1729 1.98 ± 1.71 79.9% 40.4% 2000–2009 Female 5438 8666 4813 1.59 ± 1.14 88.5% 55.5% Male 7287 11846 6192 1.63 ± 1.32 85.0% 52.3% 2010–2019 Female 8891 12238 7378 1.38 ± 0.86 83.0% 60.3% Male 8365 12041 6845 1.35 ± 0.85 81.8% 56.8% Clinical examination 1978–1989 Female 257 503 233 1.96 ± 1.58 90.7% 46.3% Male 543 1085 471 2.00 ± 1.47 86.7% 43.4% 1990–1999 Female 1156 2037 1084 1.76 ± 1.07 93.8% 53.2% Male 1432 2917 1243 2.04 ± 1.35 86.8% 42.6% 2000–2009 Female 2636 3662 2428 1.39 ± 0.82 92.1% 66.3% Male 3170 5036 2772 1.59 ± 1.08 87.4% 55.0% 2010–2019 Female 6150 9802 4535 1.59 ± 1.03 73.7% 46.3% Male 5053 9184 3132 1.82 ± 1.30 62.0% 34.1% * MCQ = multiple choice question; SD = standard deviation. * The Australian Medical Examining Council did not list candidates’ gender in a few instances during the first decade. Box 5 – Australian Medical Council multiple choice question (MCQ) examination, 1978–2019: pass rates versus (A) age and (B) recency (interval since graduation) in the year when candidates first attempted the MCQ (all countries combined)* Spearman rank order correlation: (A) r = −0.964, P < 0.001; (B) r = −0.983, P < 0.001. Box 6 – Australian Medical Council clinical examination, 1978–2019: pass rates versus (A) age and (B) recency in year when the examination was first attempted* * Spearman rank order correlation: (A) r = −0.950, P < 0.001; (B) r = −0.950, P < 0.001.

Neville D Yeomans · Jillian R Sewell · Philip Pigou · Stuart Macintyre

To the Editor: Torda and colleagues1 highlight the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic on medical education, which has prompted the rapid shift to online teaching for medical students. We need to ensure that these recent changes in medical education are thoughtfully blended with the reintroduction of face‐to‐face teaching when it occurs. Before integrating these changes, it is critical we reflect and review three key elements: Preparing students: blended learning, where online learning is combined with traditional face‐to-face teaching, is likely to capture more students’ learning styles but is also often associated with increased need for self‐directed learning, which may mainly benefit high achieving students.2,3 It is critical we equip all our students to engage effectively in adult learning to maximise the benefits of blended learning and develop engaged independent learners.4 This is an opportunity to develop these skills by ensuring that staged and increasing self‐directedness is built into new material and forms of delivery.5 Preparing educators: the attitude and preparedness of educators running or engaging in online education is crucial. As vital stakeholders, lecturers should be seen as educators and be supported and developed as such, including the training in both design and delivery of online learning.6 Preparing delivery and its content: facing the option of moving material back from online learning to face‐to-face learning, each move must be critically analysed to determine what is the most effective form of delivery. Historical modes of delivery need not be the default. Indeed, we have been given a once in a lifetime opportunity for a major, if incidental, review of each part of the curriculum and the best way it can be delivered — online, face‐to-face, or maybe a mix of both. As the mode of delivery is reviewed, the content can be refined and tailored for the students’ needs. Many of us know the deafening and discouraging silence when students are quiet in response to a question, both face‐to‐face and online. However, we are at a turning point in medical education where we must take the time to reflect and move forward with excitement regarding what has worked, and have the courage to leave behind what has not.

Lucy E Kirk · Imogen Mitchell

A live‐streamed teaching strategy that can be applied to all areas of medicine and many clinical scenarios The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) has resulted in unprecedented challenges to hospitals, the community and society. Although the necessary focus has been to care for patients and communities, the profound effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) have disrupted medical education and required intense and prompt attention from medical educators. COVID‐19 poses unique challenges to the clinical clerkship model that is fundamental to medical students’ education and has the potential to change forever how future physicians are educated.1 For more than a decade, medical schools have been working to transform pedagogy by reducing live face‐to‐face didactic lectures; using technology and simulation; implementing team‐facilitated, active and self‐directed learning; and promoting individualised and interprofessional education.2,3 However, as described by Sir William Osler, clinical teaching of medical students at the bedside remains vitally important: “to study the phenomena of disease without books is to sail an uncharted sea, while to study without patients is not to go to sea at all”.4 Medical graduates must function in a team‐based, collaborative work environment, have sound knowledge and clinical skills, and have a capacity for lifelong learning.5 In response to COVID‐19, there has been rapid development of the “boot camp” model of accelerated learning for final year medical students to support their swift transition to assistants in medicine. However, it is unclear how medical schools will manage students from the middle years of medical school, where clinical exposure is a vital part of clinical education. Typically, during years 3 and 4 of the Doctor of Medicine degree at the University of Newcastle, students spend about 50% of their time attached to wards, clinics, operating theatres and other clinical exposure opportunities. How can this clinical education continue while medical students are omitted from the clinical environment due to the COVID‐19 pandemic? Further, given that social distancing is anticipated to last many months, clinical teaching rounds with multiple medical students are unlikely to be able to recommence soon. The clinical teaching team from the University of Newcastle at John Hunter Hospital have developed the concept of “live‐streamed ward rounds”. The initiative addresses the challenge of maintaining the clinical clerkship model of education while students are excluded from the hospital for several months during the vital early years of clerkship training. This model of education has three phases (Box 1), which broadly align to advanced cognitive levels of learning expected of medical students. The Hunter New England Local Health District Ethics Committee confirmed that ethics approval was not required for this project. Phase 1: student remote observation (assess and analyse) Clinicians undertake routine ward rounds with medical students in attendance as part of routine inpatient care. During live‐streamed ward rounds, a medical student is engaged securely (password‐protected) via mobile phone to participate in the ward round, including discussion before and after a patient visit. In addition to participating in discussions, similar to face‐to‐face teaching, the student can be shown clinical records (eg, pathology results, observation charts, medical imaging, intraoperative photographs) on video via platform‐agnostic streaming software (eg, Skype for Business, Pexip, Zoom) to broaden engagement with the clinical interaction. When the patient is visited, the patient provides verbal consent for student involvement in the live‐streamed round before the consultation. This is documented in the clinical record of each patient. After obtaining verbal consent, student introduction occurs by turning the phone around so the patient can see the student and vice versa. After the introduction, the phone is turned back to the clinician so the student can see the clinician holding the phone to observe non‐verbal cues. No streaming of the clinical examination occurs during the patient encounter. When the consultation is complete, the phone is turned briefly to the patient to facilitate eye contact when the student thanks them for permission to participate in the encounter. This process is repeated with each patient on the ward round, after which the student is involved in the post‐round clinical discussion that occurs routinely as part of multidisciplinary patient care. The phone is muted or disconnected during the patient encounter if the patient declines student involvement. Phase 2: student preparation (evaluate and synthesise) During the live‐streamed ward round, the student is directed to take detailed notes so they can formulate a series of case presentations for the subsequent student case‐based ward round. The medical student obtains any missing medical information from the junior medical officer at the completion of Phase 1. Clinical records are not available electronically for the students. The aim is to prepare the student for the role of a junior medical officer in the ward environment. Phase 3: student remote case‐based ward round presentation (construct and justify) This element of the learning cycle is typically held later in the week of the live‐streamed clinical round at a time when three to 40 students can be engaged simultaneously for 60–90 minutes through videoconferencing software. The student who attended the live‐streamed clinical round presents each patient to the group as if they were a junior medical officer performing clinical handover. A clinician educator is present to facilitate case‐based discussion. After each patient is discussed, the student presents what actually occurred on the clinical round and presents the plan for ongoing care with justification. This element of the interaction is designed to emphasise patient‐centred care. We have conducted live‐streamed rounds at John Hunter Hospital in obstetrics, gynaecology and birth suite handover rounds. Approval was provided by the hospital executive after review by the local health district privacy team — student involvement by phone using a secure application (Skype for Business) was thought to be similar to student involvement with telehealth consultations in outpatient clinics. The benefits and challenges experienced with live‐streamed ward rounds are summarised in Box 2. After completion of 50 live‐streamed rounds, an informal evaluation was conducted via an anonymous voluntary Qualtrics online survey. Most of the 25 student respondents and clinicians provided positive feedback. Key findings from this survey are presented in the Supporting information. Clinical teaching is a fundamental component of medical education, particularly for developing tangible and intangible skills of medical students.6 Bedside teaching is a key opportunity for medical students, with the presence of the medical teacher, to develop medical knowledge, history taking and physical examination skills, clinical data gathering and clinical decision making.7 While students cannot participate in the clinical examination component of the patient interaction during live‐streamed ward rounds, they can hear the relevant history taking. Evidence indicates that physicians can collect 60–80% of the information relevant for a diagnosis just by taking a medical history, leading to a final diagnosis in more than 70% of cases.8 Previous studies investigating factors that are most important in creating an effective learning environment for medical students found that the level of participation students are afforded in the workplace is vital in clinical practice learning.9 Greater participation in the workplace facilitates greater confidence and competency, especially in clinical practice.9,10 A recent Australian study11 of final year medical students found the top six responses as to why students found clinical venues the most educationally useful include: the amount of patient contact; various patient presentations; being part of the clinical team; the opportunity to ask questions and receive useful information; the high level of supervision in training; and the amount of formal bedside teaching. Tutorials in a clinical setting also allow for professional development to be taught, such as communication, teamwork and ethics.12 Students require teaching in real clinical settings to develop skills for success in the real clinical environment. The structured live‐streamed ward round stimulates student participation and effectively develops clinical knowledge, enhances depth and permanency of learning, and enriches the stability and dependability of the knowledge attained. Being able to follow up patients to discharge is the ideal ending to these scenarios, where the student can see how effective the management plan was, as well as its implementation and results.11 We identified quality supervision as a key factor for maximising the educational value of clinical learning in live‐streamed ward rounds. Supervisors who are experienced and engaging make students more motivated to critically analyse patients’ clinical conditions, encourage their learning about these presentations, and formulate management plans.13,14 Live‐streamed clinical encounters should inspire us to revisit and prioritise the development of virtual clinical encounters, involving detailed scenarios that can be delivered flexibly, are always accessible and adaptive, and prioritise individualised learning. There are many advantages to live‐streamed clinical encounters, including their cost‐effectiveness in both set‐up and maintenance, the possibility of increasing access and usability of streaming technology, and allowing for the nuance of expertise and immediate feedback. As demonstrated by the COVID‐19 pandemic, they can be rapidly implemented and use principles of adult learning. The live‐streamed teaching strategy can be applied to all areas of medicine and many clinical scenarios, including ward rounds and clinical handover rounds. Recommendations on how to introduce this innovative teaching method are summarised in Box 3. This strategy is one of the many that the University of Newcastle plans to use to provide ongoing clinical teaching during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Being adaptable and flexible, cognisant of costs and driven by evidence are critical features of delivering medical education and contemporary medical practice.15 Box 1 – The three phases of the live‐streamed ward round Box 2 – Benefits and challenges of live‐streamed ward rounds Benefits The program is able to continue while students are not allowed in hospital The program is able to run while social distancing rules severely limit the number of students physically able to attend face‐to-face ward rounds The program facilitated discussions in Phase 3 which can go into greater depth than is possible in a ward environment The program provided the ability to engage larger number of students than possible in physical ward rounds The program creates more opportunity to simulate the role of a junior medical officer The program moderates clinical team variability for capacity to provide equivalent learning focus each week Challenges The program may potentially slow down ward round There is risk of technological limitations (eg, dependent on mobile phone signal and teleconferencing software) There are timetabling challenges in an unpredictable clinical environment There is inability to observe or participate in physical examination There is a loss of some of the valuable elements of the informal curriculum on ward round (eg, exemplary professional values, behaviour and collegiality via positive role modelling) Box 3 – Recommendations for introducing live‐streamed ward rounds into teaching Step 1 Design a live‐streamed round and a follow‐up reflective simulation round. This should include addressing the process for privacy, consent and technology (ie, preferred mobile videoconference platform) Step 2 Include discipline and departmental consultants running the live‐streamed round and follow‐up round in reviewing the design Step 3 Include technology support officers in reviewing the design Step 4 Seek written approval from relevant senior local health district and hospital staff (eg, medical and clinical directors) Step 5 Pilot, refine, implement

Craig E Pennell · Hannah Kluckow · Shirley Q Chen · Kerrie M Wisely · Ben LD Walker

A confounder is a variable that is associated with both the exposure and outcome of interest without being an intermediate on the causal pathway between them

Alice M Richardson · Grace Joshy

To the Editor: Before the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, we had been thinking about how best to re‐imagine our university medical program to enhance student experience and learning outcomes. Globally, questions have been raised regarding the utility and format of the pre‐clinical content taught in medical programs in the junior years,1 particularly lectures, which have increasingly low attendance rates. There is emerging evidence that blended approaches to education meet the connectivity, flexibility and interactivity expectations of learners,2 and have potential to combine the best of both online and face‐to‐face teaching. Packaging content in digestible chunks, combined with active learning activities online such as adaptive tutorials, discussions and reflections, results in more meaningful educational experiences for students than didactic lectures.3,4 The COVID‐19 pandemic forced a rapid transition to entirely online teaching for junior medical students. Even components of clinical teaching (other than physical examination) had to proceed in this format. Despite the pace of this transition, both formal and informal student feedback indicated that students have an extremely high level of satisfaction and engagement with online learning activities. The clinical training components of the program have, by necessity, also become more streamlined. COVID‐19 has forced us to examine all elements of our medical program. This is an opportunity to review the curriculum for future doctors, especially its alignment with the skills and capabilities they will need in their careers. Clearly, we need to facilitate the development of teamwork and communication skills, which will prepare students for effective patient care and multidisciplinary, interprofessional practice. Additionally, we have an obligation to support medical students in developing skills in reflection, adaptive problem solving, leadership and lifelong learning, all of which are needed to adapt to a rapidly changing health care environment.5 Some important aspects of university life, such as such as friendships, personal identity development, exposure to diversity and self‐care skills, will be much harder to achieve in a solely online environment, but as we develop plans to reintroduce elements of face‐to‐face teaching, we need to ensure that these are integrated with, and informed by, the advances made in medical education during the past few months.

Adrienne J Torda · Gary Velan · Vlado Perkovic

Removing students from clinical placements may have significant implications for future workforce planning Clinical placements for medical students are central to teaching and learning in any medical program, with students in the later years generally undertaking rotations in disciplines, such as general practice, general medicine, paediatrics, psychiatry, surgery, anaesthesia, obstetrics and gynaecology. In our medical program, there are close to 300 students currently enrolled in the 2 final years. Despite the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, Flinders University has remained committed to providing medical students with clinical placements, a stance that aligns with the Medical Deans of Australia and New Zealand,1 all state and territory health authorities, and the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee. The local consensus between stakeholders is that we have an obligation to treat all patients with appropriate safeguards in place. Given that the longer term response to COVID‐19 is unknown, removing students from clinical placements may not only affect their medical training but may also have significant implications for future workforce planning.1 However, there are extraordinary challenges in the clinical and university environments. While COVID‐19 represents a unique situation in terms of world involvement, there are other examples of large‐scale disruption to medical education, including the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak of 2003. In Canada, the local transmission of SARS in Toronto caused a significant interruption to usual teaching, particularly affecting the teaching of clinical methods skills and causing the cessation of third and fourth clerkships. This had an impact on all final year medical students and first year residency positions in Canada,2 an experience that was reflected in Hong Kong with the cancellation of ward teaching and delays in examinations.3 While we may wish to avoid this outcome, maintaining all medical students in their clinical placements can be challenging. There is heightened anxiety among the existing workforce, who are understandably concerned about the rapidly changing impact of COVID‐19, and this can lead to differing opinions among clinical supervisors as to the merits of continuing clinical placements. At our university, in partnership with medical students and health care providers, we have addressed this concern by writing and widely distributing clear guidelines for clinical placements. In some high risk placements, such as endoscopy and other aerosol generating procedures, we have encouraged clinical supervisors and students to negotiate appropriate activities that do not increase the risk of COVID‐19 exposure to the student, other staff or the patients, while still allowing the student to learn in the clinical environment. The SARS experience in Canada highlighted the variability in standard precautions and infection control practices and teaching.2 In our medical program, training on the use of personal protective equipment was previously embedded within clinical rotations. In response to COVID‐19, we have instigated refresher training for students on handwashing, N95 (or P2) mask fitting, and donning and doffing of protective clothing, with formal certification on completion. To date, students have chosen to remain on clinical placements. While they have concerns about their personal safety, they remain committed to both patient care and their own learning. This was also the case in Canada, where students took pride in their role as part of the health care team and understood that providing health care is not without risk.2 Furthermore, real‐life learning in the current situation may be invaluable. Students have seen health system governance operationalised, have witnessed senior clinicians act thoughtfully and with intent despite their own anxiety, and have watched professional practice in the provision of good communication and a sense of humanity and compassion for sick patients. COVID‐19 presents significant challenges to medical schools that embed teaching and learning within the clinical environment. Our final year students are the future medical workforce and it is our job to ensure they are competent, undifferentiated, work‐ready practitioners. Furthermore, the wider community has reasonable expectations that the newly graduated workforce will be prepared for pandemics in addition to the provision of routine care. This situation reinforces the case for competency‐based teaching and learning. Education that is discipline‐focused is likely to be significantly disadvantaged by the cancellation of risky placements or by placements that have undergone substantial modifications as a result of health care resource reallocation. However, it is important to remember that considerable clinical work unrelated to COVID‐19 still needs to continue. Ongoing evaluation of the actual educational experience that students are receiving will assist us in the provision of additional learning if deficits arise, and, in the worst case scenario, help us identify if clinical placements are no longer tenable.

Julie A Halbert · Alison Jones · Liam P Ramsey

To the Editor: On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID‐19 a pandemic. Australia has enacted public health measures to reduce the number and severity of cases.1 These measures, alongside disease burden, profoundly impact the health care system. However, the place of medical students in the COVID‐19 response is unclear. The gravity of the COVID‐19 crisis has led governments to take drastic measures. The graduation of over 10 000 Italian final year students has been expedited to supplement the overburdened workforce.2 In the United Kingdom, the Medical Schools Council has encouraged prioritising qualification of final year students to support the over‐encumbered National Health Service.2 Medical Deans Australia and New Zealand recognises the value of final year medical students, releasing a statement outlining appropriate roles.3 These involve routine aspects of care independent of the COVID‐19 response, in various clinical settings with which students are already familiar. Moreover, with clinical placements being disrupted, senior students may gain valuable practical exposure aligned with course requirements. Considering the noted mental health effects of COVID‐19,4 student contributions may relieve the burden on professional staff while alleviating any sense of helplessness, improving the mental wellbeing of students and staff alike. Importantly, medicine embodies altruism and humanity, with many students undertaking the vocation for this reason. As imminent doctors, senior medical students may therefore feel impassioned to contribute to the COVID‐19 response. Involving students, however, is not without risk. With the reported asymptomatic infectious period, expanding the workforce elevates infection risk. Exposure to patients with COVID‐19 should therefore be minimal. Further, the risk of litigation is pertinent as students are less experienced than professional staff. Responsibilities should be within capabilities, under supervision and institutional medico‐legal protection. Lastly, additional work hours may impede formal medical education; academic penalties should not be levied, on‐the‐job learning should be duly acknowledged, and accessibility of course materials should be maximised. Indeed, medical student involvement should be implemented following principles developed by key stakeholders.3,5 Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. With appropriate legal, operational and training safeguards, senior medical students have a role in the COVD‐19 response if they desire.

Jim H‐S Wang · Sarah Tan · Kyle Raubenheimer

Differences between general practice and hospital settings have ethical and legal implications for teachers and learners

Michaela Kelly · Nancy Sturman · David Pakchung

Lessons from both sides of the Pacific on how to approach struggling junior doctors

Juan N Lessing · Sheila Bryan · Christina Johnson · Janita Keating · Jeannette Guerrasio

Achieving gender equity in intensive care medicine requires specific interventions to attract and retain female trainees and support their progress to leadership roles

Lucy J Modra · Sarah A Yong

Tapping their diverse skills can benefit not only students, but also patients and health care teams

Stuart Carney

Tensions between practice and policy, and between student learning and patient safety require careful balance

Anna Therese Ryan · Caleb Fisher · Neville Chiavaroli

Training doctors through regional teaching health service networks may help deliver sustainable high quality health care closer to home for rural Australians

Paul S Worley · Belinda O'Sullivan · Rose Ellis

A preference for open peer review may reflect a historical, predominantly individualistic rather than collectivist cultural perspective

Jose Florencio F Lapeña · Peter L Munk · Aik Saw · Wilfred CG Peh

EPAs have a strong theoretical basis, can be used as assessment tools in a real world workplace based training environment

Nyoli Valentine · Jon Wignes · Jill Benson · Stephanie Clota · Lambert WT Schuwirth

Biases and assumptions often arise from past experiences and, when unquestioned, can negatively influence the development of effective educational strategies

Ruth M Sladek · Sue McAllister · Kieran M Walsh

When doctors become patients, they shouldn't be surprised that the experience is frightening, undignified and disempowering

Meagan E Brennan