Medical Student Perceptions of Integration and Effectiveness of Educational Methods Used in Analgesic Pharmacology Curricula

Abstract

Despite the prevalence of pain, it's management complexity, and concerns about opioid over-prescription, literature does not make clear ideal ways to integrate analgesic pharmacotherapy education across medical education. While most institutions implement analgesic education during preclinical pharmacology, evidence suggests that impactful education must be integrated across the preclinical and clinical years. At our institution, opioid and analgesic pharmacology education is heavily taught in the second year (M2) and integrated across 4 years using interactive didactics, Team-based learning (TBL), Case-based learning (CBL), standardized patients, and simulations. Activities are housed in modules or clerkship, but also implemented through Interprofessional education (IPE) and Longitudinal Curricular Theme events (LCT) not coordinated with a pharmacology educator. Our goals in this poster are to share our analgesic curricula and outcomes evaluated by examining analgesic pharmacology knowledge and evaluating learner perspectives across time by surveying cohorts before they took pharmacology (CO2023, a baseline), in mid-clerkship (CO2022, had completed pharmacology) and nearing graduation (CO2021). Methods A retrospective analysis was performed for cohorts CO2022 and CO2021 on their M2 performance on opioid and analgesic pharmacology summative items. Students from 3 cohorts (N = 50, CO2023; 30, CO2022; 36, CO2021) volunteered to take a survey about analgesic educational themes related to comprehension, confidence in managing pain, educational methods, diversity within cases, and integration (basic and clinical; integration of IPE and LCT). Results Summative assessment showed M2's mastered opioid and pain concepts (Mean 86%) and retained knowledge through M3 & M4. Most agreed that education increased comprehension (25% CO2023, >80% for CO2022/CO2021) and confidence as they approached graduation (15% baseline, 67% CO2022; 80% CO2021) and most (>70%) agreed basic and clinical sciences were integrated effectively. However, less felt IPE or LCT analgesic education was integrated effectively (IPE: 21% CO2023; 36% CO2022; 50% CO2021: LCT: 13% CO2023; 44% CO2022, 50% CO2021), and few perceived that cases grew in complexity in M3 or M4 (60% CO2022; 57% CO2021) or represented diverse patients (16% CO2023; 55% CO2022; 56% CO2021). Conclusion Our analgesic curriculum is integrated across 4 years, and outcomes suggest that M2 and M3 educational activities promote learning and progressively increase perceptions of understanding and confidence in learners. However, our analysis indicates improvements are needed as many learners felt that IPE and LCT opioid events not coordinated with a pharmacology educator were not effectively integrated, cases did not increase in complexity across time, and educational experiences were not sufficiently diverse. Curricular details and suggestions for improvement will be presented in the poster.