MULTIDISCIPLINARY CONSILIUM AS AN OPTIMAL WAY FOR INTEGRATION OF CLINICAL DISCIPLINES AND DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENTIFIC THINKING

• Yulia A. Lutokhina
• Ekaterina V. Goncharova
• Chavdar S. Pavlov
• Tatiana M. Litvinova
• Beatrisa A. Volel’

Abstract

The results of the implementation of the project “Multidisciplinary Consilium” among senior courses (4–6 years) students, residents and PhD students of N.V. Sklifosovsky Institute of Clinical Medicine (Sechenov University) are presented. The Multidisciplinary Consilium is a detailed clinical evaluation of a patient by doctors of different specialties. During the event, the specialists holding the Consilium actively ask questions to the audience regarding the investigation plan, diagnostic concept and patient management. In addition, the Multidisciplinary Consilium includes elements of project activity in the form of a description of a clinical case by a group of initiative students under the guidance of the specialists conducting the event. The results were evaluated by online questionnaires. Multidisciplinary approach was highly appreciated by the students, as it contributes to the formation of scientific and clinical thinking, as well as to the integration of clinical disciplines due to the strengthening of interdisciplinary links.

Keywords:multidisciplinary consilium; scientific thinking; clinical reasoning; integration; project activities; learning technologies

References

1.Morris B.J., Croker S., Masnick A., Zimmerman C. The emergence of scientific reasoning. Current Topics in Children’s Learning and Cognition, eds H. Kloos, B.J. Morris and J.L. Amaral (Rijeka: IntechOpen). 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5772/53885

2.Lutokhina Yu.A., Kireeva N.V., Litvinova T.M., Volel B.A. Results of implementation of the “flipped classroom” approach with elements of project activity at the N.V. Sklifosovsky Institution of Clinical Medicine, Sechenov University. Meditsinskoe obrazovanie i professional’noe razvitie [Medical education and professional development]. 2022; 13 (4): 81–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33029/2220-8453-2022-13-4-81-92 (in Russian)

3.Flanagin A., Curfman G., Bibbins-Domingo K. Data Sharing and the Growth of Medical Knowledge. JAMA. 2022; 328 (24): 2398–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.22837

4.Zhukov S.V., Topalyan K., Ogneva E. Yu. Actualization of the problems of development of high-tech medical care in Russia. Archiv EuroMedica. 2020; 10 (3): 18–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35630/2199-885X/2020/10/3.3

5.Shchepin V.O., Larionova Iu.K., Ponomareva I.V. On the issue of the enhancement of high-specialized emergency. Problemy sotsialnoy gigieny, zdravookhranennii i istorii medsiny [Problems of social hygiene, health care and the history of medicine]. 2007; 4: 38–40. (in Russian)

6.TASS, published on 3 September 2019, 09:58 [WEB resource]. URL: https://tass.ru/obschestvo/6835241

7.Brauer D.G., Ferguson K.J. The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 96. Med Teach. 2015; 37 (4): 312–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.970998. Epub 2014 Oct 16. PMID: 25319403

8.Neufeld V.R., Woodward C.A., MacLeod S.M. 1989. The McMaster M.D. program: A case study of renewal in medical education. Acad Med. 64 (8): 423–32.

9.Veronese C., Richards J.R., Pernar L., Sullivan A.M., Schwartzstein R.M. A randomized pilot study of the use of concept maps to enhance problem-based learning among first-year medical students. Med Teach. 2013; 35: e1478–e1484.

10. Bandiera G., Boucher A., Neville A., Kuper A., Hodges B. Integration and timing of basic and clinical sciences education. Medical Teacher. 2013; 35 (5): 381–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.769674

11. Doig K., Bridgham R. Securing desired outcomes from interdisciplinary case presentations. Medical Teacher. 2000; 22 (1): 34–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590078797

12. White B., Ghobadi A. Models of clinical integration into basic science education for first-year medical students. Medical Teacher. 2023; 45 (3): 333–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2134002

13. Bowe C.M., Voss J., Thomas Aretz H. Case method teaching: An effective approach to integrate the basic and clinical sciences in the preclinical medical curriculum. Medical Teacher. 2009; 31 (9): 834–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590902922904

14. Kercheval J.B., Mott N.M., Kim E.K., Boscardin C.K., Klein B.A., Hauer K.E., Daniel M. Students’ Perspectives on Basic and Clinical Science Integration When Step 1 is Administered After the Core Clerkships. Teaching and Learning in Medicine. 2023; 35 (2): 117–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2022.2030235

15. Pomeroy V.M., Philp I. Healthcare teams: an interdisciplinary workshop for undergraduates. Medical Teacher. 1994; 16 (4): 341–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/01421599409008271

16. Lee A., Joynt G.M., Ho A.M.H., Gin T., Hazlett C.B. Effect of an integrated teaching intervention on clinical decision analysis: a randomized, controlled study of undergraduate medical students. Medical Teacher. 2007; 29 (2-3): 231–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701287897

17. Beck G.L., Hanigan M.J. Unexpected findings from an interdisciplinary case conference. Medical Teacher. 2012; 34 (10): 866–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.716186

18. Lianov L.S., Adamson K., Kelly J.H., Matthews S., Palma M., Rea B.L. Lifestyle Medicine Core Competencies: 2022 Update. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2022; 16 (6): 734–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15598276221121580. PMID: 36389051; PMCID: PMC 9644148.

19. Trilk J.L., Worthman S., Shetty P., Studer K.R., Wilson A., Wetherill M., Whelan L., Bansal S., Alexander M., Frates B., Cramer S., Rea B. Undergraduate Medical Education: Lifestyle Medicine Curriculum Implementation Standards. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2021; 15 (5): 526–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15598276211008142. PMID: 34646101; PMCID: PMC 8504338/

20. InTalent [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://intalent.pro/interview/ancha-baranova-o-personalizirovannoy-medicine-i-professiyah-budushchego.html

21. Motola I., Devine L.A., Chung H.S, Sullivan J.E., Issenberg S.B. Simulation in healthcare education: a best evidence practical guide. AMEE Guide No. 82 // Med Teach. 2013; 35 (10): e1511–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.818632. Epub 2013 Aug 13. PMID: 23941678.

22. Hautz W.E., Schubert S., Schauber S.K., Kunina-Habenicht O., Hautz S.C., Kämmer J.E., Eva K.W. Accuracy of self-monitoring: does experience, ability or case difficulty matter? Med Educ. 2019; 53 (7): 735–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13801. Epub 2019 Feb 14. PMID: 30761597.

23. Gribbin W., Wilson E.A., McTaggart S., Hortsch M. Histology education in an integrated, time-restricted medical curriculum: Academic outcomes and students’ study adaptations. Anat Sci Educ. 2022; 15 (4): 671–84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2127. Epub 2021 Nov 10. PMID: 34363740.

24. Dijk S.W., Duijzer E.J., Wienold M. Role of active patient involvement in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2020; 10 (7): e037217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037217. PMID: 32718925; PMCID: PMC 7389514.

25. Ryan A., Judd T., Swanson D., Larsen D.P., Elliott S., Tzanetos K., Kulasegaram K. Beyond right or wrong: More effective feedback for formative multiple-choice tests. Perspect Med Educ. 2020; 9 (5): 307–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-020-00606-z. PMID: 32789664; PMCID: PMC 7550480.

26. Yardley S., Dornan T. Kirkpatrick’s levels and education “evidence”. Med Educ. 2012; 46 (1): 97–106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04076.x. PMID: 22150201.

All articles in our journal are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0 license)