Effectiveness of short, personalised student assistantships: an evaluative study across eight London hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: Student assistantships are recommended to prepare medical graduates for clinical practice. Traditionally, assistantships have consisted of longer placements, often up to 15 weeks. However, within the constraints of the final year, medical schools need to carefully balance the time required for specialty placements, assessments and the risk of student burnout. We set out to evaluate the effectiveness of shorter, personalised student assistantships. DESIGN: An evaluative study on the changes in final year student confidence in preparedness for practice after a 3-week assistantship with defined learning objectives and learning needs assessment. SETTING: Eight hospitals affiliated with Imperial College School of Medicine. OUTCOMES: Student confidence in 10 learning outcomes including organising ward rounds, documentation, communication with colleagues, communication with patients and relatives, patient handover, practical procedures, patient management, acute care, prioritisation and out-of-hours clinical work. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty final year medical students took part in the student assistantship, of whom 208 completed both the pre-assistantship and post-assistantship confidence rating questionnaires (95% completion rate). After the assistantship, 169 (81%) students expressed increased confidence levels in one or more learning objectives. For each individual learning objective, there was a significant change in the proportion of students who agreed or strongly agreed after the assistantship (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Overall, the focused 3-week, personalised student assistantships led to significant improvement across all learning objectives related to preparedness for practice. The use of the pre-assistantship confidence rating questionnaire allowed students to identify and target areas of learning needs during their assistantship.

Time for preference-informed foundation allocation?

Successful completion of year 1 of the UK Foundation Programme is a General Medical Council requirement that newly qualified doctors must achieve in order to gain full registration for licence to practise in the UK. We present compelling evidence that both sections of the UK Foundation Programme allocation process, consisting of the Educational Performance Measure and Situational Judgement Test scores, are not fit for purpose. The ranking process drives competitive behaviours among medical students and undermines NHS teamworking values. Furthermore, data from 2013-2020 show that UK minority ethnic students consistently receive significantly lower SJT scores than White students. The current process in the UK allocates lower ranked students, who often need more academic and social support, to undersubscribed regions. This can lead to vacancies in less popular regions, ultimately worsening health inequality. A preference-informed allocation process will improve trainee access to support and help retain trainees in underserved regions. We aim to summarise the flaws of the current system and report a potential radical solution.

Understanding concepts of generalism and specialism amongst medical students at a research-intensive London medical school.

BACKGROUND: Many prominent UK medical organisations have identified a need for more generalist clinicians to address the complex requirements of an aging society. We sought to clarify attitudes towards "Specialists" and "Generalists" amongst medical students and junior doctors at Imperial College School of Medicine. METHODS: A survey exploring medical students' beliefs was followed up by qualitative analysis of focus groups of medical students and Imperial-graduate foundation year doctors. RESULTS: First year medical students associated specialists with academia and higher income, and generalists with ease of training and job availability. Senior (Years 5/6) medical students associated specialists even more firmly with broader influence and academic work, whilst generalists were assigned lower prestige but the same workload as specialists. The medical student focus group discussed concepts of Generalism pertaining only to Primary Care. In contrast, the foundation year doctor focus group revealed that Generalism was now seen to include some hospital care, and the perception that generalists sat lower in a knowledge hierarchy had been challenged. CONCLUSION: Perceptions that Generalism is associated with lower prestige in the medical profession are already present at the very start of medical school and seem to be reinforced during undergraduate training. In early postgraduate clinical practice, the perceived knowledge and prestige hierarchy lessens. These findings can help inform curriculum redesign and the promotion of Generalism as a rewarding career aspiration.

A Weighted Evaluation Study of Clinical Teacher Performance at Five Hospitals in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Evaluation of individual teachers in undergraduate medical education helps clinical teaching fellows identify their own strengths and weaknesses. In addition, evaluation data can be used to guide career decisions. In order for evaluation results to adequately reflect true teaching performance, a range of parameters should be considered when designing data collection tools. METHODS: Clinical teaching fellows at five London teaching hospitals were evaluated by third-year students they had supervised during a ten-week clinical attachment. The questionnaire addressed (a) general teaching skills and (b) student learning outcome measured via comparative self-assessments. Teachers were ranked using different algorithms with various weights assigned to these two factors. RESULTS: A total of 133 students evaluated 14 teaching fellows. Overall, ratings on teaching skills were largely favourable, while the perceived increase in student performance was modest. Considerable variability across teachers was observed for both factors. Teacher rankings were strongly influenced by the weighting algorithm used. Depending on the algorithm, one teacher was assigned any rank between #2 and #10. CONCLUSION: Both parts of the questionnaire address different outcomes and thus highlight specific strengths and weaknesses of individual teachers. Programme directors need to carefully consider the weight assigned to individual components of teacher evaluations in order to ensure a fair appraisal of teacher performance.

Undergraduate exposure to patient presentations on the acute medical placement: a prospective study in a London teaching hospital.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the availability and variability of learning opportunities through patient presentations on an acute medical placement at a teaching hospital. DESIGN: A prospective study evaluating all acute admissions to the Acute Medical Unit over 14 days (336 hours). Clinical presentations and the day and time of admission were recorded and compared with the learning outcomes specified in the medical school curriculum. SETTING: An Acute Medical Unit at a London teaching hospital. OUTCOMES: (1) Number of clinical presentations to the Acute Medical Unit over 14 days and (2) differences between the availability and variation of admissions and presentations between in-hours and out-of-hours. RESULTS: There were 359 admissions, representing 1318 presentations. Of those presentations, 76.6% were admitted out-of-hours and 23.4% in-hours. Gastrointestinal bleeding, tachycardia, oedema and raised inflammatory markers were over three times more common per hour out-of-hours than in-hours. Hypoxia was only seen out-of-hours. Important clinical presentations in the curriculum such as chest pain and hemiparesis were not commonly seen. CONCLUSIONS: There is greater availability of presentations seen out-of-hours and a changing landscape of presentations seen in-hours. The out-of-hours presentation profile may be due to expanded community and specialist services. Medical schools need to carefully consider the timing and location of their clinical placements to maximise undergraduate learning opportunities.

Dr. Me project: Teaching children self-care for self-limiting illnesses in primary schools.

INTRODUCTION: With increasing demand on general practitioners (GPs) and emergency departments (EDs), patient empowerment for appropriate self-care and inspiring medical careers is vital to sustaining the NHS. Dr. Me trains doctors and medical students to teach primary school children how to self-care for common self-limiting illnesses. METHODS: Volunteers delivered 1-hour Dr. Me sessions in schools, covering workshops on vomiting and diarrhoea; sore throat and fever; and minor and head injuries. Six case scenarios were asked at the beginning and end of the session, and children decided whether to stay home, visit the GP or attend the ED. Responses before and after were compared. A feedback questionnaire gauged confidence in self-care and interest in medical careers. RESULTS: Dr. Me taught 216 children. Correct responses after the sessions improved by 16.3% (p<0.00001). Vomiting scenarios improved from 48.1% to 68.8%, sore throat from 63.9% to 87.5%, and minor injuries from 84.7% to 89.4%. Feedback showed 93.3% felt more confident in self-care and 56.9% were more interested in medicine. DISCUSSION: Participating in the Dr. Me project can improve primary school children's knowledge in self-care and increase their confidence in managing self-limiting conditions. Dr. Me also increased children's interest in becoming doctors which can benefit widening participation activities.

Very Short Answer Questions: A Novel Approach To Summative Assessments In Pathology.

BACKGROUND: A solid understanding of the science underpinning treatment is essential for all doctors. Pathology teaching and assessment are fundamental components of the undergraduate medicine curriculum. Assessment drives learning and the choice of assessments influences students' learning behaviours. The use of multiple-choice questions is common but is associated with significant cueing and may promote "rote learning". Essay-type questions and Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) are resource-intensive in terms of delivery and marking and do not allow adequate sampling of the curriculum. To address these limitations, we used a novel online tool to administer Very Short Answer questions (VSAQs) and evaluated the utility of the VSAQs in an undergraduate summative pathology assessment. METHODS: A group of 285 medical students took the summative assessment, comprising 50 VSAQs, 50 single best answer questions (SBAQs), and 75 extended matching questions (EMQs). The VSAQs were machine-marked against pre-approved responses and subsequently reviewed by a panel of pathologists, with the software remembering all new marking judgements. RESULTS: The total time taken to mark all 50 VSAQs for all 285 students was 5 hours, compared to 70 hours required to manually mark an equivalent number of questions in a paper-based pathology exam. The median percentage score for the VSAQs test (72%) was significantly lower than that of the SBAQs (80%) and EMQs (84%), p <0.0001. VSAQs had a higher Cronbach alpha (0.86) than SBAQs (0.76), and EMQs (0.77). VSAQs, SBAQs and EMQs had a mean point-biserial of 0.35, 0.30 and 0.28, respectively. CONCLUSION: VSAQs are an acceptable, reliable and discriminatory method for assessing pathology, and may enhance students' understanding of how pathology supports clinical decision-making and clinical care by changing learning behaviour.

Using prescribing very short answer questions to identify sources of medication errors: a prospective study in two UK medical schools.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the utility and ability of the novel prescribing very short answer (VSA) question format to identify the sources of undergraduate prescribing errors when compared with the conventional single best answer (SBA) question format and assess the acceptability of machine marking prescribing VSAs. DESIGN: A prospective study involving analysis of data generated from a pilot two-part prescribing assessment. SETTING: Two UK medical schools. PARTICIPANTS: 364 final year medical students took part. Participation was voluntary. There were no other inclusion or exclusion criteria. OUTCOMES: (1) Time taken to mark and verify VSA questions (acceptability), (2) differences between VSA and SBA scores, (3) performance in VSA and (4) SBA format across different subject areas and types of prescribing error made in the VSA format. RESULTS: 18 200 prescribing VSA questions were marked and verified in 91 min. The median percentage score for the VSA test was significantly lower than the SBA test (28% vs 64%, p<0.0001). Significantly more prescribing errors were detected in the VSA format than the SBA format across all domains, notably in prescribing insulin (96.4% vs 50.3%, p<0.0001), fluids (95.6% vs 55%, p<0.0001) and analgesia (85.7% vs 51%, p<0.0001). Of the incorrect VSA responses, 33.1% were due to the medication prescribed, 6.0% due to the dose, 1.4% due to the route and 4.8% due to the frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing VSA questions represent an efficient tool for providing detailed insight into the sources of significant prescribing errors, which are not identified by SBA questions. This makes the prescribing VSA a valuable formative assessment tool to enhance students' skills in safe prescribing and to potentially reduce prescribing errors.