Clinical evaluations of junior surgery students frequently lack sufficient detail for effective formative or summative feedback.
We hypothesized that this was in part due to a lack of personal accountability associated with large general surgery teams, and that altering the format to assign students to specific surgical faculty preceptors rather than to teams would affect the clinical evaluation products.
Over a 1-year period, 154 junior medical students grouped into 8 successive clerkships were assigned alternately in the usual Team (3-5 junior students, with 2-4 general surgery faculty, 2-4 residents, and 0-2 senior students) or a new Preceptor format (1-2 students to each faculty preceptor).
In order to keep the ratio of students to faculty low, approximately one-third of the Preceptor format students were assigned to subspecialists.
The preceptor format resulted in the use of more adjectives to describe students in the open-ended portions of the faculties'clinical evaluations (mean of 3.2 as compared with 2.5, P=0.003), and a greater proportion of students recommended for overall clinical Honors (47% as compared with 25%, P=0.004).
The clerkship format had no impact on exam performance, students'perceptions of the faculty, or the amount of students'self-reported clinical activity. (...)
Mots-clés Pascal : Formation professionnelle, Chirurgien, Etude comparative, Enseignement professionnel, Individu, Groupe fini, Evaluation performance, Homme
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Occupational training, Surgeon, Comparative study, Occupational education, Individual, Finite group, Performance evaluation, Human
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 97-0299417
Code Inist : 002B30A09. Création : 15/07/1997.