Convergence and translation: attitudes to inter-professional learning and teaching of creative problem-solving among medical and engineering students and staff

BMC Medical Education

Colm O’Tuathaigh⁴  Padraig Cantillon-Murphy³  Siun O’Flynn⁴  George Shorten⁴  John McSweeney³  Sabine Van Huffel²  Katrien Vanderperren²  Hendrik Drachsler¹  Catherine Sweeney⁴  Deirdre Bennett⁴  Louise Burgoyne⁴  Slavi Stoyanov¹  Howard Spoelstra¹ 

[1] Welten Institute, Research Centre for Learning, Teaching and Technology, Open University of the Netherlands, Valkenburgerweg 177, 6419 AT Heerlen, Netherlands;Department of Electrical Engineering, ESAT-SCD, and iMinds Future Health Department Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium;Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University College Cork, College Road, Cork, Ireland;School of Medicine, Brookfield Health Sciences Complex, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

关键词: Engineering;    Medicine;    Creativity;    Interdisciplinary learning;    Translation;   

Others  :  1231827
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-14-14

 received in 2013-06-05, accepted in 2014-01-08,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Healthcare worldwide needs translation of basic ideas from engineering into the clinic. Consequently, there is increasing demand for graduates equipped with the knowledge and skills to apply interdisciplinary medicine/engineering approaches to the development of novel solutions for healthcare. The literature provides little guidance regarding barriers to, and facilitators of, effective interdisciplinary learning for engineering and medical students in a team-based project context.

Methods

A quantitative survey was distributed to engineering and medical students and staff in two universities, one in Ireland and one in Belgium, to chart knowledge and practice in interdisciplinary learning and teaching, and of the teaching of innovation.

Results

We report important differences for staff and students between the disciplines regarding attitudes towards, and perceptions of, the relevance of interdisciplinary learning opportunities, and the role of creativity and innovation. There was agreement across groups concerning preferred learning, instructional styles, and module content. Medical students showed greater resistance to the use of structured creativity tools and interdisciplinary teams.

Conclusions

The results of this international survey will help to define the optimal learning conditions under which undergraduate engineering and medicine students can learn to consider the diverse factors which determine the success or failure of a healthcare engineering solution.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Spoelstra et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]General Medical Council: Tomorrow’s doctors. London: General Medical Council; 2009.
• [2]Ingersoll G, Schmitt MH: Interdisciplinary collaboration, team functioning, and patient safety. In Institute of Medicine. Keeping patients safe: Transforming the work environment of nurses. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 341-383.
• [3]Callahan CM, Boustani MA, Unverzagt FW, Austromy MG, Damush TM, Perkins AJ, Fultz BA, Hui SL, Counsell SR, Hendrie HC: Effectiveness of collaborative care for older adults with Alzheimer disease in primary care: a randomised controlled trial. Jama 2006, 295:2148-2157.
• [4]Lown BA, Manning CF: The Schwartz Center Rounds: evaluation of an interdisciplinary approach to enhancing patient-centered communication, teamwork, and provider support. Acad Med 2010, 85:1073-1081.
• [5]Privitera MB, Design M, Johnson J: Interconnections of basic science research and product development in medical device design. Conf Proceed - IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2009, 5595-5598.
• [6]Ness RB: Commentary: teaching creativity and innovative thinking in medicine and health sciences. Acad Med 2011, 86:1201-1203.
• [7]Barfett J, Lanting B, Margaritis A, Herbert C, Silcox J: Integrating medical and engineering undergraduate training. Can Med Assoc J 2005, 172:1537.
• [8]Oden M, Mirabal Y, Epstein M, Richards-Kortum R: Engaging undergraduates to solve global health challenges: a new approach based on bioengineering design. Annal Biomed Eng 2010, 38:3031-3041.
• [9]Matsuki N, Takeda M, Yamano M, Imai Y, Ishikawa T, Yamaguchi T: Designing a clinical education program for engineers: the ESTEEM Project. J Interprof Care 2010, 24:738-741.
• [10]Sheu D, Lee H: A proposed process for systematic innovation. Int J Product Res 2011, 49:847-868.
• [11]Kickbusch I, Novotny TE, Drager N, Silberschmidt G, Alcazar S: Global health diplomacy: training across disciplines. World Hosp Health Serv 2007, 43:20-22.
• [12]Cantillon-Murphy P, McSweeney J, Burgoyne L, O’Tuathaigh C, O’Flynn S, Shorten G: Solving clinical problems through interdisciplinary learning: an initial feasibility study. Int J E Educ 2013. In press
• [13]Altshuller G: And Suddenly the Inventor Appears. MA, USA: Technical Innovation Center, Inc.; 2006.
• [14]Honey P, Mumford A: The Manual of Learning Styles. 3rd edition. Peter Honey: Maidenhead; 1992.
• [15]ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology): Criteria for accrediting engineering programs, 2011–2012. 2014. http://www.abet.org/displaytemplates/docshandbook.aspx?id=3146 webcite
• [16]IET (Institution for Engineering and Technology): IET learning outcomes handbook incorporating UK-SPEC for bachelors and MEng degree programmes. 2014. http://www.theiet.org/academics/accreditation/policy-guidance/handbook_lo.cfm webcite
• [17]WFME: WFME global standards for quality improvement in medical education European specifications. 2014. http://www.amse-med.eu/documents/EuropeanSpecifications.pdf webcite
• [18]Kilminster S, Hale C, Lascelles M, Morris P, Roberts T, Stark P, Sowter J, Thistlethwaite J: Learning for real life: patient-focused interprofessional workshops offer added value. Med Educ 2004, 38:717-26.
• [19]Horsburgh M, Lamdin R, Williamson E: Multiprofessional learning: the attitudes of medical, nursing and pharmacy students to shared learning. Med Educ 2001, 35:876-83.
• [20]Hammick M, Freeth D, Koppel I, Reeves S, Barr H: A best evidence systematic review of interprofessional education: BEME Guide no. 9. Med Teach 2007, 29:735-51.
• [21]Kirton MJ: Adaption-innovation in the context of diversity and change. London: Routledge; 2003.
• [22]Stoyanov S, Kirschner P: Effect of problem solving support and cognitive style on idea generation: implications for technology-enhanced-learning. J Res Technol Educ 2007, 40:49-63.
• [23]Meneely J, Portillo M: The adaptable mind in design: relating personality, cognitive style, and creative performance. Creativ Res J 2005, 17:155-166.
• [24]Brown J, Collins A, Duguid P: Situated cognition and the culture of learning. In Situated Learning Perspectives. Edited by McLellen H. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Educational Technology Publications; 1996:19-44.
• [25]VanGundy A: Idea power. Techniques and resources to unleash the creativity in your organization. New York: N.Y: Amacom; 1992.
• [26]Martin R, Maytham B, Case J, Fraser D: Engineering graduates’ perceptions of how well they are prepared for work in industry. Eur J Eng Educ 2005, 30:167-80.