Curriculum Innovation: Teaching Neuroethics Through a Case-Based Undergraduate Medical Education Workshop: Implementation and Evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM STATEMENT

Medical students on their clinical neurology clerkship often encounter ethically challenging situations, yet formal neuroethics training is limited. This study sought to evaluate a case-based small-group workshop that was implemented to introduce students to important neuroethics concepts and resources.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To define decision-making capacity and describe how it is assessed in neurologic illness; (2) to define the legal category of brain death and its evolution over time; (3) to describe the legal process for surrogate decision making in the state of Maryland; (4) to identify barriers to goals-of-care conversations; and (5) to reflect on how personal beliefs of patients and physicians influence delivery of care and medical decision making.

METHODS AND CURRICULUM DESCRIPTION

A 1.5-hour interactive curriculum for medical students on the neurology clerkship covering ethical considerations in brain death, surrogate decision making, and navigating conversations surrounding these topics (with reference to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, and others' health and health disparities) was designed and implemented over 2 years. Curriculum outcomes were measured by preworkshop and postworkshop self-assessment surveys. Learner reactions were measured by self-reported interest in ethics and perceived utility of the curriculum. Content knowledge was measured through multiple-choice questions on brain death and capacity assessment, which were scored for correctness by the study team, and self-reported confidence in ethical reasoning. Changes in these metrics were analyzed for paired precourse and postcourse responses to determine the effectiveness of the session.

RESULTS AND ASSESSMENT

The study recruited 234 of 356 rotating students (65.7% response rate). Presurvey data revealed that 36% had encountered a challenging clinical scenario before the intervention. Preintervention and postintervention paired data were available for 184 (79%) respondents. Of these, 66% reported increased confidence in their knowledge of ethics, and 42% reported increased interest in ethics. Presession performance on content questions did not differ significantly based on prior clinical ethics experience. Performance on neuroethics content questions improved significantly after the session as demonstrated by the increase in the percentage of students providing correct answers to content questions between the presurvey and postsurvey (17% increase for capacity assessment, 19% increase for brain death, and 22% increase for surrogate decision making, < 0.0001).

DISCUSSION AND LESSONS LEARNED

An interactive neuroethics workshop using a case-based discussion format integrates ethics and health disparity education into the clinical neurology curriculum and enhanced knowledge and confidence in medical ethics. This curriculum increases student interest in ethics, confidence in their ability to perform ethical reasoning tasks, and content knowledge of brain death and surrogate decision making.