MedEdPORTAL (Sep 2014)
Small Group Discussion Activity: Perspectives in Cancer Genetics
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The Association of American Medical Colleges has outlined 12 undergraduate medical education (UME) clinical method competencies that prepare early medical professionals for the development of the higher level Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies during residency. The purpose of this resource is to provide preclinical students with a faculty-guided group learning activity that helps them grow in three of the UME competencies: (1) ability to understand the nature of, and demonstrate professional and ethical behavior in, the act of medical care; (2) ability to engage and communicate with a patient, develop a student-patient relationship, and communicate with others in the professional setting; and (3) ability to apply scientific knowledge and method to clinical problem-solving. Methods This faculty-facilitated, small-group discussion activity follows a family through four generations as its members cope with cancer diagnoses, changing cancer treatments, and the rapidly developing fields of cancer genetics and genetic testing. The activity engages medical students in discussions about patient care, communication, and health care policy relevant to cancer, genetic screening, end-of-life issues, family dynamics, and health care utilization. The case was developed for (preclinical) M1 and M2 medical students but could be used with M3 and M4 students as well. The discussion was designed to be delivered in one 90− to 120-minute small-group session, with an additional 30 minutes for a “faculty huddle,” a faculty-only discussion prior to the session. Eight to 12 students per group is optimal, but the session could be delivered in a much larger group or in a lecture setting. Materials include guidelines for faculty facilitators and students to prepare them for the group discussion, as well as a slide presentation that can be presented during the faculty huddle to help prepare facilitators for the discussion. Results As this activity was a component of much larger course, we do not have outcome data or student feedback specific to it. However, several faculty facilitators reported that the case yielded rich and interesting conversations and that they look forward to presenting it again next year. Discussion The case and suggested additional readings yield engaging discussions between students within the group, between students and their faculty facilitators, and between facilitators during the faculty huddle. Because there are few clear-cut right or wrong answers in the case, faculty and students have the opportunity grapple with their own thoughts and beliefs about difficult issues in a safe and constructive environment. Also, the case encourages students to think about and discuss broader principles of bioethics: beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. The detail that one member of the family in the case is a medical student also resonates with our students and helps personalize the difficult choices involved. Overall, we have received positive feedback from faculty facilitators about this small-group activity and plan to use it again with future classes.
Keywords
