G20 - Results from two pilot projects to increase learning in BME courses by immersing health professions students

Introduction: : Engineers and clinicians bring distinct and important perspectives to medical innovation. However, the successful integration of these viewpoints remains a challenge, from BME education to the biomedical industry to clinical practice. Clinical immersion programs are a well-established way of extending learning for biomedical engineering (BME) students, but there are very few opportunities for health professional students (HPS) to have an immersion in engineering or the design process.
A major challenge of clinical immersion programs is the viable scale of engineering student enrollment. Programs typically limit the number of students they enroll to match the capacity of clinical partners. However, challenges of scale do not eliminate the need for all BME students to learn about, through, and with health professionals. Additionally, the primary goal of many clinical immersion programs is learning via observation. Traditionally, the observational models are limited by focusing on learning about, but not learning to work with clinicians.
BME education needs alternatives to clinical immersion programs that increase capacity and develop the ability to work alongside health professionals. BME students may lack knowledge about clinical practice but possess knowledge about product design and technical problem-solving. Conversely, health professional students (HPS) are well-equipped to help BME students make sense of clinical environments but lack the technical skills to develop solutions that meet those needs. That is, there exists an ongoing need for new models to foster interaction between BME students and HPS.

Materials and

Methods: : Two models of integrating HPS into BME design courses were piloted. Both models have been tested for two or more semesters. The primary focus of the study was post-clinical medical students (3rd and 4th years), but did include other allied health students (RN, PT, etc.).
The two models varied in the role the HPSs played in the courses. The first model placed one or two HPSs in each course section as ‘Clinical TAs’. Clinical TAs provided input to multiple teams across an entire course section. They participated in design reviews and provided clinical insight to all projects, rather than being an active member in a specific project group. The second model paired one HPS with one team for a semester-long Capstone design project.
We utilized Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) methodology to evaluate and refine both models. Surveys and instructor observations were used to evaluate practical aspects of the implementations and future modifications. After each PDSA cycle, feedback from participating students, faculty, and support staff was solicited. Surveys were distributed to all participants electronically at the end of each semester under an IRB-approved protocol. The surveys provide insight into the learning and challenges to learning from both groups of students.

Results, Conclusions, and Discussions:: Over five semesters, nearly 350 BME students and more than 50 HPS participated in one of the two models. We consistently received greater interest in participation from HPS than we were able to accommodate as we scaled both models. In the full presentation we will present more expansive results on student learning, effectiveness of the two models, and experiences with academic change on this project.
After the clinical TA course, 80% of participants suggested keeping or expanding the program. BME students appreciated being able to clarify terminology, sharing their experience, or quickly provide feedback to support iteration. The BME students also noted the clinical TAs brought different perspectives than their teammates but expressed frustration when encountering HPS knowledge gaps - which they assumed ‘real’ doctors wouldn’t have. While the students attributed this ‘negative’ to the HPS being students, we see it as positive. Understanding the limits of knowledge, even when it comes from experts, is something we have identified as a challenge throughout our design curriculum. Both the HPS and BMEs suggested models (e.g., embedding with teams) that allowed greater engagement and partnership.
Similarly, 80% of BME students believed others would benefit from the paired capstone model. BME students noted their HPS partners had more relevant physiology, used less medical jargon than their sponsors, and addressed aspects of their projects not well-covered in the literature. HPS provided clinical context that students otherwise lacked, enhancing understanding of hospital systems, the environment of device use, and connections to users. While the capstone program already requires interviewing clinical and patient stakeholders and users, HPS were able to fill a different learning need.
Our results show use and suggest scalability of ‘clinician immersion’ approaches to creating clinical learning in BME courses. This partnership offers an alternative to clinical immersion for integrating traditionally separate health professional and engineering education into a collaborative, interactive experience, providing early exposure to interdisciplinary perspectives to foster medical innovation. Future plans include expanding the embedded model to all capstone design teams, piloting two additional models in other design courses, and deeper research on learning and experience of students and faculty.

Acknowledgements and/or References (Optional):: Funding information blinded for review.