Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the influence that volunteering before medical school with older people in a care home has on the perceptions of older people. Design/methodology/approach Eight medical students answered an anonymous questionnaire relating to their experiences of volunteering in a care home before medical school. This was combined with an analysis of the relevant literature. Findings All the students had initially volunteered to enhance their CV for medical school. After volunteering, they had a greater realisation of the variety of older people. They also gained a number of transferable skills related to communicating with older people, especially those with cognitive impairment. The greatest learning experience was around the issues to do with dementia. Research limitations/implications The research is based on eight students although they were from different areas. Practical implications It would be beneficial if care homes could be more proactive in encouraging prospective medical students to volunteer. Medical schools could also provide clearer advice or take a more active stance such as encouraging prospective students to volunteer with older people. Further research should be with a larger sample to gain insight into varying perspectives. It would also be useful to conduct research into older adults’ attitudes towards the contribution of potential medical students to their own lives and to the home. Social implications Volunteering before medical school should be encouraged as it will enhance the chances of getting a place as well as being an eye opening experience and equip them with lifelong skills. Originality/value Original.

The overall aimsThe aim of this research was to examine whether volunteering in a care home by prospective medical students is taken into account by medical schools.The research questions were:1. Do medical schools in the UK take into account volunteering when choosing students? 2. Is working with older people one of the criteria? MethodsAn examination of the university websites and online prospectuses in Great Britain for 2017 entry to medical schools together with relevant literature.

Objective: This study aimed to assess patient recall of the consent discussion for urological procedures and to identify which risks were material to urology patients. Methods: A total of 102 patients undergoing urological procedures were interviewed in the 24-hour period surrounding the procedure. A self-designed, piloted questionnaire recorded information from the patient’s signed consent form and patient-reported data of the consent discussion. Results: The mean patient recall was 2.06 risks, whereas the average number of risks listed by the operating surgeon on the consent form was 5.69 risks. The most frequently recalled risk was impotence (91%), followed by urinary incontinence (63%) and haematuria (61%). The risks associated with poorest patient recall were stent symptoms (0%), urethral catheter insertion (5%) and recurrence (8%). Conclusions: Poor patient recall of the consent discussion has again been demonstrated in this study. However, certain urological procedure risks are better recalled by patients, with impotence, urinary incontinence and haematuria being most frequently recalled. Medical terminology such as stent or catheter may be poorly recalled due to a disparity in understanding between patient and clinician. Clinicians should be aware of poor patient recall when consenting for urology procedures and should ensure precise documentation. Level of evidence: Level 2b.

No abstract