How do national specialty groups develop undergraduate guidelines for medical schools, and which are successful? A systematic review

Abstract

This is a comprehensive review of the processes involved in creating international and national guidelines, with emphasis of key points for those considering similar undertakings. These include thorough needs analysis of multiple groups involved in the delivery of the curriculum; and engagement of relevant parties throughout development, to ensure relevance and increase buy-in. Flexibility is important, to allow use in medical schools with different methods of teaching. Ongoing evaluation and update are also critical steps that must not be forgotten.

What do we need to know about anatomy in gynaecology: A Delphi consensus study

“…This means that trainees compromise 40 % of the doctors working in the modern field of gynaecology as in our Delphi survey. In our opinion we believe this diversity is a key strength since it demonstrates the engagement of all parties involved in the development process, which makes uptake more likely [20]. Several reports have evaluated the role of gross human anatomy in the medical curriculum, illustrating differing perspectives held by students [21][22][23][24], anatomists [25], postgraduate doctors [26] and clinicians [27,28].…”

What do we need to know about anatomy in gynaecology? An international validation study

“…Finally, there was diversity due to the involvement of trainees and medical doctors with different levels of experience and education. This diversity makes it more likely that the list will be included in national training programmes [28].…”

Twelve tips for undertaking a focused systematic review in medical education

“…Currently, the resource investment required to produce high-quality, methodologically rigorous systematic reviews in medical education is significant, often necessitating large budgets, massive time commitments and highly-skilled researchers (Petticrew and Roberts 2006;Smith et al 2011). A brief look at ten recent reviews published in leading medical education journals highlights the magnitude of work involved in producing them: two analyses had in excess of 110 papers (Carney et al 2016;Remschisel et al 2017) and a further three included at least 70 (Feilcheneld et al 2017;Kaplonyi et al 2017; Whitehouse et al 2017). It is common for such large scale reviews to perform synthesis that is pervaded by heterogeneity.…”