A survey of clinical empathy training at UK medical schools

Rachel Winter; Andy Ward; Robert I Norman; Jeremy Howick

doi:10.1186/s12909-022-03993-5

A survey of clinical empathy training at UK medical schools

BMC Med Educ. 2023 Jan 19;23(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03993-5.

Authors

Rachel Winter¹, Andy Ward², Robert I Norman³, Jeremy Howick^{2

4}

Affiliations

¹ Stoneygate Centre for Empathic Healthcare, Leicester Medical School, George Davies Centre, University of Leicester, University Road, LE1 7RH, Leicester, England. rw205@le.ac.uk.
² Stoneygate Centre for Empathic Healthcare, Leicester Medical School, George Davies Centre, University of Leicester, University Road, LE1 7RH, Leicester, England.
³ Leicester Medical School, College of Life Sciences University of Leicester, George Davies Centre, LE1 7RH, Leicester, England.
⁴ The Oxford Empathy Programme, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford, OX2 6GG, Oxford, England.

Abstract

Background: The benefits of enhancing practitioner empathy include better patient outcomes and improved job satisfaction for practitioners. Evidence suggests empathy can be taught and empathy is listed as an outcome for graduates in the General Medical Council requirements. Despite this, empathy training is not mandatory on medical school curricula and the extent to which medical students are given empathy-specific training is unknown.

Aim: To conduct a survey of empathy training currently offered to medical students in UK medical schools.

Methods: An invitation to participate in an online survey was sent to all UK medical schools (n = 40). The survey was developed through a consultancy and pilot process to ensure validity and reliability. Questions explored what empathy-focused training is offered, and asked educators whether or not they believed that current provision of empathy training is sufficient. In parallel, medical school websites were searched to identify what information regarding empathy-focused training is described as being part of the degree course. Descriptive statistics were used to describe empathy training delivery from the results of the online materials survey and closed survey questions. Thematic analysis was used to explore free text comments.

Results: Response rate was 70% (28/40), with 28 medical schools included in the analysis. Twenty-six schools reported that their undergraduate curriculum included some form of empathy-focused training with variation in what, when and how this is delivered. Thematic analysis revealed two overarching themes with associated sub-themes: (i) empathy-focused training and development (considering where, when and how empathy training should be integrated); (ii) challenges presented by including empathy on the curriculum (considering the system, students and faculty). All schools agreed empathy training should be on the undergraduate curriculum.

Conclusion: This is the first nationwide survey of empathy-focused training at UK medical schools. While some form of empathy-focused training appears to be provided on the undergraduate curriculum at most UK medical schools, empathy is rarely specifically assessed. Most medical educators do not feel their school does enough to promote empathy and the majority would like to offer more.

Keywords: Clinical empathy; Medical education; Survey.

MeSH terms

Curriculum
Education, Medical, Undergraduate* / methods
Empathy
Humans
Reproducibility of Results
Schools, Medical*
Students, Medical* / psychology
Surveys and Questionnaires
United Kingdom