Background: Although the number of older patients is increasing in almost all medical specialties, the interest of medical students in geriatrics as a career is still low. Because quality of medical education and educators strongly influences student career decisions, it is important to develop curricula that motivate students to become self-directed, lifelong learners in the field of geriatric medicine. Objectives: We evaluated training aspects in terms of time, core content of teaching goals, and quality of undergraduate geriatric education in medical schools in Austria and Germany. Methods: A standardized paper questionnaire was sent to all 36 German and 4 Austrian medical faculties to evaluate quantitative aspects, content, and quality of pregraduate medical education in geriatrics. Results were compared to the recommendations of the Geriatric Medicine Section of the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). Results: A total of 33/36 (92 of the German medical faculties) and 4/4 (100 of the Austrian medical faculties) responded to the questionnaire. In most of the faculties, geriatric medicine was taught as an independent discipline in the core curriculum, with learning objectives absent in almost one third of the faculties. A medical student's first contact with geriatric medicine occurred on average during the second clinical year (median 8th semester). Although the content of geriatric curricula strongly varied among the faculties, core knowledge as recommended by the UEMS was integrated into most of the curricula. Teaching strategies regarding the development of attitudes and skills also recommended by the UEMS were identified in the curriculum of only some faculties. Conclusions: Geriatrics seems to be an established subject in most German and Austrian faculties. However, the current data clearly indicate highly variable quality in geriatric pregraduate training at German and Austrian universities. Because curricula should prepare young people using competence-based training and assessment methods, room for improvement remains not only in terms of structure, but also regarding quality of training to develop self-directed lifelong learners.

Keywords:
Medical education, Geriatrics, Curriculum development, Learning objectives, Educational strategies
1.
Chambers GR (ed): Health Care Systems in the EU: A Comparative Study [Internet] European Parliament, Directorate General for Research; saco 101 en; 1998 [cited 26.06.2012] available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/saco/pdf/101_en.pdf.
2.
Goins RT, Gainor SJ, Pollard C, Spencer SM: Geriatric knowledge and educational needs among rural health care professionals. Gerontology 2003;29:261-272.
3.
Coccaro EF, Miles AM: The attitudinal impact of training in gerontology/geriatrics in medical school: a review of the literature and perspective. J Am Geriatr Soc 1984;32:762-768.
4.
Perrotta P, Perkins D, Schimpfhauser F, Calkins E: Medical students' attitudes toward geriatric medicine and patients. J Med Educ 1981;56:478-483.
5.
Fitzgerald JT, Wray LA, Halter JB, Williams BC, Supiano MA: Relating medical students' knowledge, attitudes, and experience to an interest in geriatric medicine. Gerontologist 2003;43:849-855.
6.
Bland KI, Isaacs G: Contemporary trends in student selection of medical specialties: the potential impact on general surgery. Arch Surg 2002;137:259-267.
7.
Bartram L, Crome P, McGrath A, Corrado OJ, Allen SC, Crome I: Survey of training in geriatric medicine in UK undergraduate medical schools. Age Aging 2006;35:533-535.
8.
Gordon AL, Blundell AG, Gladman JR, Masud T: Are we teaching our students what they need to know about ageing? Results from the UK National Survey of Undergraduate Teaching in Ageing and Geriatric Medicine. Age Ageing 2010;39:385-388.
9.
Kern DE, Thomas PA, Hughes MT: Curriculum Development for Medical Education: A Six Step Approach, ed 2. Baltimore, John Hopkins University Press, 2009.
10.
Geriatric section of the Union Européenne des médecines spécialistes (UEMS) [Internet] Undergraduate training; 2003 [cited 06.04.2012] available at http://www.uemsgeriatricmedicine.org/.
11.
Miller GE: The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med 1990;65:63-67.
12.
Kolb G: Unterricht Q7 (Medizin des Alterns und des alten Menschen) an 36 deutschen medizinischen Fakultäten: Anschriften, Stunden-Zahlen, Unterrichtsorganisation. Euro J Ger 2006;8:236-245.
13.
Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR, editors: A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York, Longman, 2001.
14.
Bloom BS: Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: A Classification of Educational Objectives. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York, Longman, 1984.
15.
British Geriatrics Society: The Medical Undergraduate Curriculum in Geriatric Medicine. Best Practice Guide 5.1 (revised July 2007) [cited 15.09.2012]. Available at http://www.bgs.org.uk.
16.
von Renteln-Kruse W, Dieckmann P, Anders J, Rösler A, Krause T, van den Bussche H: Medicine in old age and in the elderly. Educational concepts in area Q7 of the accreditation requirements and its first evaluation by students. Z Gerontol Geriatr 2005;38:288-292.
17.
Alfarah Z, Schünemann HJ, Akl EA: Educational games in geriatric medicine education: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr 2010;10:19.
18.
Pacala JT, Boult C, Hepburn K: Ten years' experience conducting the Aging Game workshop: was it worth it? J Am Geriatr Soc 2006;54:144-149.
19.
Karani R, Leipzig RM, Callahan EH, Thomas DC: An unfolding case with a linked Objective Structures Clinical Examination (OSCE): a curriculum in inpatient geriatric medicine. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004;52:1191-1198.
20.
Norcini JJ, Blank LL, Duffy FD, Fortna GS: The mini-CEX: a method for assessing clinical skills. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:476-481.
21.
Hauer KE: Enhancing feedback to students using the mini-CEX (Clinical Evaluation Exercise). Acad Med 2000;75:524.
22.
Joshi R, Ling FW, Jaeger J: Assessment of a 360-degree instrument to evaluate residents' competency in interpersonal and communication skills. Acad Med 2004;79:458-463.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.