Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T06:59:59.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surgeon educator perspectives of implementing a national undergraduate curriculum in otolaryngology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2022

A Hall Open the ORCID record for A Hall [Opens in a new window] ,
H Jones  and
A Hannan
A Hall*
Affiliation:
Noah's Ark Children's Hospital for Wales and University Hospital for Wales, Cardiff, Wales
H Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK
A Hannan
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, University College Hospital, London, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Mr A Hall, Noah's Ark Children's Hospital for Wales and University Hospital for Wales, Heath Park Way, Cardiff CF14 4XW, UK E-mail: andyhall07@googlemail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

The General Medical Council will be implementing a national medical licensing assessment for all UK medical students by 2024–25. Surgeon educator perceptions on a national undergraduate curriculum in otolaryngology were reviewed accordingly.

Method

A mixed methods study was undertaken within a UK school of surgery assessing ENT surgeon educators. Perspectives on teaching content, quality and student experience were assessed with degree of agreement assessed (Likert scoring). Associated qualitative focus group sessions underwent detailed thematic analysis according to grounded theory.

Results

A response rate of 50 per cent was achieved involving 21 participants working across 14 hospitals. These showed strong agreement that implementation of a national curriculum would improve the standard of teaching delivered at a personal, institutional and national level. Further themes were identified relating to the personal, institutional and specialty related factors influencing practical delivery.

Conclusion

A series of practical recommendations are made to potentially assist the implementation of a national ENT curriculum.

Keywords

CurriculumOtolaryngologyEducationMedicalUndergraduate
Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 137 , Issue 10 , October 2023 , pp. 1090 - 1096
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Mr A Hall takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

McManus, IC. Medical school differences: beneficial diversity or harmful deviations? Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:324–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wyneford-Thomas D. Organization and management of medical schools - a survey of ten universities. In: http://www.medschools.ac.uk/Publications/Pages/default.aspx [1 December 2021]Google Scholar
Howe, A, Campion, P, Searle, J, Smith, H. New perspectives—approaches to medical education at four new UK medical schools. BMJ 2004;329:327–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fung, K. Otolaryngology – head and neck surgery in undergraduate medical education: advances and innovations. Laryngoscope 2015;125:1–14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farooq, M, Ghani, S, Hussain, S. Prevalence of ear, nose & throat diseases and adequacy of otolaryngology training among general physicians. Int J Pathol 2016;14:113–15Google Scholar
Lloyd, S, Tan, ZE, Taube, MA, Doshi, J. Development of an otolaryngology undergraduate curriculum using a Delphi survey. Clin Otolaryngol 2014;39:281–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steven, RA, Mires, GJ, Lloyd, SK, McAleer, S. An undergraduate otolaryngology curriculum comparison in the United Kingdom using a curriculum evaluation framework. Clin Otolaryngol 2017;42:963–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gill, FJ, Leslie, GD, Grech, C, Latour, JM. Using a web-based survey tool to undertake a Delphi study: application for nurse education research. Nurs Educ Today 2013;33:1322–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chyung, SY, Roberts, K, Swanson, I, Hankinson, A. Evidence-based survey design: the use of a midpoint on the Likert scale. Perf Improv 2017;56:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, P, Stewart, K, Treasure, E, Chadwick, B. Methods of data collection in qualitative research: interviews and focus groups. Br Dent J 2008 ; 204:291–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krueger, R, Casey, M. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000Google Scholar
Glaser, BG, Strauss, A. Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. London: Sociology Press, 1967Google Scholar
Braun, V, Clarke, V. Successful Qualitative Research. London: Sage, 2013Google Scholar
Norman, G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2010;15:625–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sullivan, GM, Artino, AR. Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. JGME 2013;5:541–2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Constable, J, Moghul, G, Leighton, P, Schofield, S, Daniel, M. Prioritising topics for the undergraduate otolaryngology curriculum. J Laryngol Otol 2017;131:631–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansell, B. University challenges: explaining institutional change in higher education. World Politics 2008;60:189–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prideaux, D. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: curriculum design. BMJ 2003:326;268–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtner-Smith, M. The more things change the more they stay the same: factors influencing teachers' interpretations and delivery of national curriculum physical education. Sport, Educ Soc 1999;4:75–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ungar, OA, Magen, N. Teachers in a changing world: attitudes toward organizational change. J Comp in Educ 2014;1:227–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
General Medical Council. Medical Licensing Assessment. London, UK. In: https://www.gmc-uk.org/education/medical-licensing-assessment [27 October 2022]Google Scholar
McNally, SA. Competition ratios for different specialties and the effect of gender and immigration status. JRSM 2007;101:489–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gene, ral Medical Council (2015) The state of medical education and practice in the UK report: London, UK. In: https://www.gmc-uk.org/about/what-we-do-and-why/data-and-research/the-state-of-medical-education-and-practice-in-the-uk [27 October 2022]Google Scholar
NHS England. Improving general practice—a call to action. In: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/igp-cta-evid.pdf [1 December 2021]Google Scholar
Khan, MM, Saeed, SR. Provision of undergraduate otorhinolaryngology teaching within General Medical Council approved UK medical schools: what is current practice? J Laryngol Otol 2012;126:340–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Powell, J, Cooles, FA, Carrie, S, Paleri, V. Is undergraduate medical education working for otolaryngology surgery? A survey of UK medical school graduates. J Laryngol Otol 2011;125:896–905CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clamp, PJ, Gunasekaran, S, Pothier, DD, Saunders, MW. Otolaryngology in general practice: training, experience and referral rates. J Laryngol Otol 2007;121:580–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stecher, B, Kirby, S. Organisational Improvement and Accountability: Lessons for Education from Other Sectors California. Santa Monica: Rand, 2004Google Scholar
Batmanabane, G. When angels fall…are we lowering the standards of medical education in India? J Pharmacol Pharmacother 2013;4:1–3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferguson, GR, Bacila, IA, Swamy, M. Does current provision of undergraduate education prepare UK medical students in otolaryngology? A systematic literature review. BMJ Open 2016;6:e010054CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed