Dr Nisha Dogra, Greenwood Institute of Child Health ... · Dr Nisha Dogra, Greenwood Institute of...

Dr Nisha Dogra, Greenwood Institute of Child Health, University of LeicesterSylvia Reitmanova, Memorial University, NewfoundlandOlivia Carter Pokras, University of Maryland

Aim: To compare cultural diversity teaching and the relevant issues in the three countries.

Method: Review of key documents that have shaped cultural diversity education in each country.

Compare and contrast current issues.

(Did not enter the academic debates re varied terminology)

For each country, we briefly reviewed the drivers and current status before reviewing the issues and suggesting future directions.

Focused on key principles rather than specific details

Commonalities that exist to enable educators to reflect on

Suffice to say, there are many terms (e.g., cultural awareness, competence, sensitivity, sensibility, diversity and critical cultural diversity) used in different contexts with different meanings.

There tend to be two specific approaches:

those that involve acquiring quantifiable knowledge, skills and attitudes that should enable physicians to interact with patients of diverse cultural backgrounds;

and those that assume that meanings of culture depend on situation and context, and aim to enablephysicians to reflect on the role these play in health care delivery

Tomorrow’s Doctors contained broad statements referring to the knowledge, skills and attitudes expected from students. The document included a statement about diversity but provided little in the way of explicit expectations in the area.

Debatable if it is influential.

A recent initiative on medical leadership (NHS Institute ofInnovation and Improvement) stated that competent doctors:

“recognise and articulate their own values and principles,appreciating how these may differ

from those of other individuals and groups.”

Legislative changes (e.g. Singe Equality Scheme 2010) may serve as added drivers.

2008 (Bentley et al) study showed a wide variation in teaching practices between healthcare professions and geographical regions.

Longer established.

Established in response to the 1985 Task Force Report on Black and Minority Health, the HHS Office of Minority Health developed National Standards on Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS).

In 2005, New Jersey became the first state to require cultural competency training of physicians as a condition of licensure – others have followed but states such as Colorado vetoed such developments.

Two standards in this area:

“faculty and students must demonstrate an understanding of the manner in which people of diverse cultures and belief systems perceive health and illness and respond to various symptoms, diseases, and treatments.”

“medical students must learn to recognise and appropriately address gender and cultural biases in themselves and others, and in the process of health care delivery.”

Major domains for cultural competency training in undergraduate medical school were identified by the Association of American Medical Colleges’ Tool for Assessing Cultural Competence Training.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s proposed curriculum template also addresses elements of cultural competency through professionalism and interpersonal and communication skills.

In addition to these new accreditation standards, many organisations (e.g., American Medical Association, Society of General Internal Medicine Health Disparities Task Force) encouraged medical and graduate schools to provide training in culturally competent health care and health disparities.

Several reviews which find that whilst more schools may say is being done not always very clear what is being done.

Most of the schools emphasised specific cultural information about the ethnic communities they served and general themes, such as the doctor-patient relationship, socioeconomic status, and racism.

Since 2002, LCME requires obligatory inclusion of cultural diversity education within curricula at all accredited Canadian medical schools.

In the same year, the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada developed the Social Accountability Initiative advocated for diversity education.

Since 2002, LCME requires obligatory inclusion of cultural

diversity education within curricula at all accredited Canadian

medical schools



medical schools



medical schools

Previous surveys documented that the inclusion of culturaldiversity education and training in Canadian undergraduatemedical curricula was inadequate.

A recent review suggests that still hugely diverse and the gap between schools is increasing.

In all three countries, lack of conceptual clarity aboutwhat cultural diversity means and how these concepts shouldbe framed.

Governing and licensing bodies require offer insufficient guidance regarding how culture and diversity shouldbe understood and embraced in school curricula or whicheducational approach is more effective.

Medical schools in all three countries can determine their ownpedagogical methods, formats and structure for culturaldiversity education, making it difficult to compare curriculaand effectively measure change or progress. Very rarely is thephilosophy made explicit.

While the governing bodies require the inclusion of culturaldiversity, they give sparse guidance regarding how to implementor assess the curriculum, with varying degrees of prescription regarding medical school teaching.

Without clarity about what cultural diversity means, the teaching can be hugely varied which is unlikely in subjects such as anatomy,physiology or biochemistry.

In all three countries programme reviews indicate is happening more but not always evidence of where, when and how.

Huge variability in what is taught at different schools and methods used to teach.

Often add on and not necessarily integrated through the curriculum,unsure often how linked to clinical practice

Should licensing and governing bodies clarify what should be taught in medical schools to ensure desired outcomes are met?

In all three countries there has been a tendency to emphasise teaching about different or “other” cultures.

The dominant discourse is still about students gaining “expertise” about other cultures and wanting certainty where it may not exist.

Another common theme is the variability of faculty support and development of staff.

The level of expertise and experience of staff involvedin cultural diversity education vary greatly in all threecountries.

Very few staff have formal education or training inthe area when compared to staff involved in teaching core medical subjects.

Commonality in that some students feel that because they live in “multicultural contexts,” or are members of minority ethnic groups themselves, they do not need to learn about cultural diversity.

Cultural competency education may still be viewed as lessimportant than the basic science courses or just “politicalcorrectness.”



medical schools



medical schools



medical schools

Students are taught one thing but often see another in practice.

Formal evaluation of cultural diversity education and program remains limited.

In the U.K., there is some ambivalence thatassessments are required in cultural diversity

In North America, students’ subjective evaluation of cultural diversity education is captured with annual Graduate Questionnaires (on Medical School Program Evaluation and on indicate whether they feel adequately trained.

Need effective leadership and clarity as to how terms of cultural diversity are

defined and used in medical school curricula.







Need effective leadership and clarity as to how terms of cultural diversity are defined and used in medical school curricula.

There is improved understanding that culture is more than just about somebody’s skin colour, ethnicity or health beliefs.

Medical schools and education governing bodies need to better assess students’ understanding of the impact of cultural diversity in health and healthcare.









Better evaluation is needed of educational models to determine whether they influence changes in student attitudes and ultimately in health care outcomes.

Some limited evidence exists that guidelines would be well received in the U.K.









Drs. Carter-Pokras and Dogra gratefully acknowledge funding from the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI K07HL079255). This paper stems from an earlier workshop: “International perspectives on cultural competence training: assessment and evaluation of cultural competence education in the U.K., U.S. and Canada: Discussion of Theory and Practice” held at the 12th International Ottawa Conference on Clinical Competence in New York City on May 23, 2006.

Reference: Dogra N, Reitmanova S & Carter-Pokras O (2010) Teaching cultural diversity: current status in U.K., U.S., and Canadian medical schools Journal of General Internal Medicine. 25 (Suppl 2); 164-168.

How might we influence policy?Any benefit from having international links and how might these be established?Are there national bodies that might work more effectively together?Never likely to reach consensus on detail of curricula but could we on principles?Faculty support – how could we do this?Engaging students – get students to do more?

Dr Nisha Dogra, Greenwood Institute of Child Health ... · Dr Nisha Dogra, Greenwood Institute of...

Documents

Transcript of Dr Nisha Dogra, Greenwood Institute of Child Health ... · Dr Nisha Dogra, Greenwood Institute of...