{"title":"Improving Acute Care Preparedness Amongst Medical Students: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Haider Merchant, Joanna Tarr","doi":"10.7759/cureus.86688","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Evidence suggests that there is inadequate preparation for acute care within the undergraduate medical curriculum. Although previous attempts have been made to address this concern, a lack of formal evaluation of intervention effectiveness limits their utility. This review aimed to identify educational interventions seeking to prepare medical students for acute care and evaluate their effectiveness. MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science were systematically searched. Primary research studies published between 2000 and 2020 and reporting changes in outcomes related to medical student preparation for acute care were included. Study outcomes were described as either highly effective, effective, ineffective, negative or variable. Study quality was appraised using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Studies with an MERSQI score of ≥14 were classed as high-quality. Overall, 72 studies were included in this review. The majority were single-group pre- and post-test studies (n=39, 54.2%) and none measured changes in student behaviour or patient/healthcare outcomes. Courses, clerkships, and simulation were found to be the most effective interventions. All Clerkship studies measuring improvements in acute care skills were effective or highly effective. Mean MERSQI score was 12.4 (range=7.8-15.5, SD=1.7) and 18 studies (25%) were classed as high-quality. This review favours the use of clerkships, as well as courses and simulation. However, considerable heterogeneity and numerous study limitations prevent firm conclusions from being drawn. Future high-quality studies, especially those measuring behavioural changes and patient/healthcare outcomes, are subsequently needed. Reviews with a more focused area of research, those assessing long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness, would additionally prove beneficial.</p>","PeriodicalId":93960,"journal":{"name":"Cureus","volume":"17 6","pages":"e86688"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12195642/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cureus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.86688","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Evidence suggests that there is inadequate preparation for acute care within the undergraduate medical curriculum. Although previous attempts have been made to address this concern, a lack of formal evaluation of intervention effectiveness limits their utility. This review aimed to identify educational interventions seeking to prepare medical students for acute care and evaluate their effectiveness. MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science were systematically searched. Primary research studies published between 2000 and 2020 and reporting changes in outcomes related to medical student preparation for acute care were included. Study outcomes were described as either highly effective, effective, ineffective, negative or variable. Study quality was appraised using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Studies with an MERSQI score of ≥14 were classed as high-quality. Overall, 72 studies were included in this review. The majority were single-group pre- and post-test studies (n=39, 54.2%) and none measured changes in student behaviour or patient/healthcare outcomes. Courses, clerkships, and simulation were found to be the most effective interventions. All Clerkship studies measuring improvements in acute care skills were effective or highly effective. Mean MERSQI score was 12.4 (range=7.8-15.5, SD=1.7) and 18 studies (25%) were classed as high-quality. This review favours the use of clerkships, as well as courses and simulation. However, considerable heterogeneity and numerous study limitations prevent firm conclusions from being drawn. Future high-quality studies, especially those measuring behavioural changes and patient/healthcare outcomes, are subsequently needed. Reviews with a more focused area of research, those assessing long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness, would additionally prove beneficial.
有证据表明,本科医学课程中对急症护理的准备不足。虽然以前曾试图解决这一问题,但由于缺乏对干预措施有效性的正式评价,限制了它们的效用。本综述旨在确定旨在为医学生准备急症护理的教育干预措施,并评估其有效性。系统检索了MEDLINE、CENTRAL、Embase、Scopus和Web of Science。纳入了2000年至2020年间发表的初级研究,这些研究报告了医学生为急症护理做准备的相关结果的变化。研究结果被描述为高度有效、有效、无效、负面或可变。采用医学教育研究性研究质量量表(MERSQI)评价研究质量。MERSQI评分≥14的研究被归类为高质量研究。本综述共纳入72项研究。大多数是单组测试前和测试后研究(n=39, 54.2%),没有测量学生行为或患者/医疗保健结果的变化。课程、实习和模拟是最有效的干预手段。所有测量急性护理技能改善的研究都是有效的或非常有效的。MERSQI平均评分为12.4(范围7.8-15.5,SD=1.7), 18项研究(25%)被归为高质量研究。这种审查倾向于使用办事员,以及课程和模拟。然而,相当大的异质性和众多的研究局限性阻碍了得出确定的结论。未来需要进行高质量的研究,特别是那些测量行为变化和患者/医疗保健结果的研究。在更集中的研究领域进行审查,评估长期结果和成本效益,也将证明是有益的。