The program, which was accredited by the Bond University Senate and Australian Medical Council in 2016, is now in its third year of implementation. Of the 84 students in the first graduating MD cohort, 43 undertook a research project that was supervised by clinicians from feeder hospitals and a Bond co-supervisor, 19 undertook professional projects, and 22 undertook capstone projects during their final year. Table 2 describes the distribution of student projects from 2017-19.
Table 2. Distribution of student projects 2017-19
Project types
|
Year 5 (n=96) 2019
|
Year 5 (n=93) 2018
|
Year 5 (n= 84) 2017
|
Research projects
|
43 students x 23 projects
|
50 students x 21 projects
|
43 students x16 projects
|
Professional projects
|
14 students x 4 projects
|
14 students x 3 projects
|
19 students x 4 projects
|
Capstone projects
|
39 students x 4 immersions
|
29 students x 3 immersions
|
22 students x 4 immersions
|
Innovations
A number of innovations were developed during the transition process. An electronic portfolio was built using the university’s Blackboard technology, providing students with information, learning outcomes, project descriptions, application templates for all requirements, and used gradebook to collect and monitor assessment i.e., 100 points. The integrated structured program ensured students followed a guided scholarly experience that was fully integrated into the existing program. Online research modules conducting a literature search were developed, and an existing assignment was adapted for assessment of writing a literature review.
Flexibility was a priority, given that not all students wanted to undertake research. Following AQF requirements students chose from three project types – research project, professional project, or capstone project. They were then given freedom of choice from a bank of projects across a range of medical domains e.g., oncology, mental health, obstetrics, general practice etc. These projects resulted from an expression of interest from clinicians in feeder hospitals as well as academic staff. This process was undertaken well ahead of time (6-8 months) to enable the project supervisor to gain ethics approval if required and for clinical placements to be allocated. An MD Project Roadshow was held at the commencement of 4th year for clinicians and academic staff to ‘pitch’ their projects to the students, followed by discussion time with clinicians.
The capstone health equity immersion option was a unique feature of the program. During the final year, students could elect to undertake a 7-week placement at one of three sites: Kira Kira Hospital (Solomon Islands), Capetown (South Africa), and Apunipima Health Council (Cape York), and in 2018 India. The placement was supported by an online Global Health Module, a clinical skills update workshop, a pre-departure briefing session and post-immersion debriefing session. Evaluation feedback has been extremely positive with many students stating that these placements have changed their future career trajectory (Smith, Jones and Fink, 2015).
A successful supervision process was vital to the success of the students’ research experience. Each project was allocated a project supervisor, and external clinicians were also allocated a ‘Bond co-supervisor’, whose role was to provide a direct link to the university, support the supervisor and the students, monitor the project to ensure timelines were met, and to assist with methodological advice as required. A highlight of the program was the End-of-Program Conference. All Bond medical students, clinicians, supervisors, and academic staff attend (n=approximately 500). Final year students present their project work and contribute to a published book of abstracts.
Challenges
Several challenges need mention. The MD model is quite different to other universities, so it was important to communicate and draw out these variances. Sourcing sufficient projects, across a range of topics, was initially thought to be a challenge, however, this was not the case. Using the expression of interest process for clinical projects provided ample (four-fold) for our needs, increasing in the subsequent years. We also provided two academics for qualitative and quantitative methodological advice. The co-supervisors were also an asset for each project.
With any new initiative it was imperative to include all staff and students, during the developing stages of the program. Communication was the key to our success. We ran regular information sessions for all students, hospitals, academic and professional staff to ensure they engaged with the transition process. Our development team comprised three academics sharing the workload (Total = 1.0 FTE), and one part-time administrator. An Implementation Committee oversaw the process, comprising clinicians, hospital placement coordinators, academics, and administrators. In the final year, management of the implementation was handed to the medical program assessment team with an MD academic lead guiding the process. Working with multiple hospitals and two universities was not without complication. Sometimes the students shared projects with another university which used a different model (i.e., research experience was optional and extra-curricular), there was at times some confusion regarding the different student requirements. Problems were ultimately resolved using the co-supervisors.