This year’s event is packed full of some of the brightest mind in Europe, with provocateurs Paul Brand, Tim Swanwick and Charlotte Ringsted and co-chairs Jonas Nordquist and one of our very own blog editors, Jamiu Busari.
Below is a brief description of each provocateur’s topic. For those who have never attended an ICE Summit, we say: the best part of these events comes from the debate and interaction among attendees after the topics are introduced… so the audience is a major part of the event!
Disagree with the statements below? Then you’ll be the ultimate audience member, pushing back and helping create the discussion that makes these events a success!
Session #1: “Additional courses is THE solution to improve residents poor EBM skills!”
Dr. Paul Brand, Isala Hospital, The Netherlands
Ask any contemporary doctor , and they will assure you they practice evidence based medicine (EBM). But do they? Evidence indicates otherwise – most senior AND junior doctors perform poorly in EBM skills. When confronted with an education deficit like this, the usual reflex is to propose more training. A mandatory course! A hands-on workshop! Everybody happy. In this session, we will explore the pros and cons of this approach in learning complex skills such as EBM.
Session #2: “The job of the clinical teacher is not to teach, but to structure experience”
Dr. Tim Swanwick, Health Education England,United Kingdom
Learning as a process of acquisition is, according to Anna Sfard (1998) ‘so strongly entrenched in our minds that we would probably never become aware of its existence if another alternative metaphor did not start to develop’. This has, and continues to be, the predominant metaphor in medical education, a perspective that views the development of mind independent of its social context. If, however, we view learning as a process of participation; learning is embedded in everyday activities and no longer seen as being ‘necessarily or directly dependent on pedagogical goals or official agenda’. What then is the role of the clinical teacher?
Sfard A. On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educ Res 1998;27:4–13.
Traditionally we select for residency based on applicants’ prior academic performance and in some cases supplied by interviews and testing for a variety of competences related to a specialty. However, the question is whether we are too preoccupied by trying to predict the outcome instead of making an effort the see whether the applicants have the capability to learn and are a good match for a certain specialty.
In this presentation, Dr. Ringsted will demonstrate a model of workplace-based selection, “The introduction year”, which foregoes the entry to the main residency. During the introduction year, the resident can demonstrate the capability to learn the basics related to working within a specialty. This year also gives both parties due time in an authentic context to decide whether this specialty is a good match. The resident may have more than one introduction year – either within the same specialty or in different specialties.