The effects of problem-based learning (PBL) were examined by conducting a meta-analysis-type review of the English-language international literature from 1972 to 1992. Compared with conventional instruction, PBL, as suggested by the findings, is more nurturing and enjoyable; PBL graduates perform as well, and sometimes better, on clinical examinations and faculty evaluations; and they are more likely to enter family medicine. Further, faculty tend to enjoy teaching using PBL. However, PBL students in a few instances scored lower on basic sciences examinations and viewed themselves as less well prepared in the basic sciences than were their conventionally trained counterparts. PBL graduates tended to engage in backward reasoning rather than the forward reasoning experts engage in, and there appeared to be gaps in their cognitive knowledge base that could affect practice outcomes. The costs of PBL may slow its implementation in schools with class sizes larger than 100. While weaknesses in the criteria used to assess the outcomes of PBL and general weaknesses in study design limit the confidence one can give conclusions drawn from the literature, the authors recommend that caution be exercised in making comprehensive, curriculum-wide conversions to PBL until more is learned about (1) the extent to which faculty should direct students throughout medical training, (2) PBL methods that are less costly, (3) cognitive-processing weaknesses shown by PBL students, and (4) the apparent high resource utilization by PBL graduates.

No abstract

BackgroundProject Re-Engineered Discharge (RED) is an evidence-based strategy to reduce readmissions disseminated and adapted by various health systems across the country. To date, little is known about how adapting Project RED from its original protocol impacts RED implementation and/or sustainability. The goal of this study was to identify and characterize contextual factors influencing how five California hospitals adapted and implemented RED and the subsequent impact on RED program sustainability.MethodsParticipant observation and key informant and focus group interviews with 64 individuals at five California hospitals implementing RED in 2012 and 2013 were conducted. These involved hospital leadership, personnel responsible for Project RED implementation, hospital staff, and clinicians. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using a modified grounded theory approach and constant comparative analysis.ResultsBoth internal and external contextual factors were identified that influenced hospitals’ decisions on RED adaptation and implementation. These also impacted RED sustainability. External factors included: impending federal penalties for hospitals with high readmission rates targeting specific diagnoses, and access to external funding and technical support to help hospitals implement RED. Internal or organizational level contextual factors included: committed leadership prioritizing Project RED; RED adaptations; depth, accountability and influence of the implementation team; sustainability planning; and hospital culture. Only three of the five hospitals continued Project RED beyond the implementation period.ConclusionsThe sustainability of RED in participating hospitals was only possible when hospitals approached RED implementation as a transformational process rather than a patient safety project, maintained a high level of fidelity to the RED protocol, and had leadership and an implementation team who embraced change and failure in the pursuit of better patient care and outcomes. Hospitals who were unsuccessful in implementing a sustainable RED process lacked all or most of these components in their approach.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2242-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.