STFM Predoctoral Education Conference 2010 Location, Location, Location: Does it matter for the 3rd year clerkship? Jacob Prunuske, MD, MSPH Teresa Kulie, MD David Deci, MD STFM Predoctoral Education Conference 2010
UW 3rd-Year Primary Care Clerkship Required 150 students/yr 8 weeks FM and Peds/IM Rotation Structure Clinic PBL residency site (22% of students) non-residency site
Background Variable anecdotal student feedback regarding site experiences Clerkship desire to optimize educational experiences for students LCME requires equivalent experiences Strengths & weaknesses of residency vs non-residency training sites
Objectives Compare instructional quality in residency and non-residency clerkship sites Consider implications of results for student site assignments and faculty development Approved by the University of Wisconsin Educational Research IRB
MedEdIQ Validated survey tool 4 domains of instructional quality Learning opportunities Site environment Student involvement Preceptor actions Items rated on a six-point scale James, PA, Osborne, JW. Family Medicine 21(4) 1999. 263-269 James, PA et al. Academic Medicine 76(10) 2001. s33 – s35 Six-point scale strongly disagree, mildly disagree, disagree, mildly agree, agree, strongly agree Involvement No exposure, involved hardly at all, involved to a small, moderate, or high degree
MedEdIQ Learning opportunities (6 items) Site environment (6 items) ‘I saw a wide variety of interesting cases’ Site environment (6 items) ‘Things moved too fast for me to really learn anything’
MedEdIQ Student involvement (7 items) Preceptor actions (14 items) ‘Performing exams’ Preceptor actions (14 items) ‘Made every patient encounter a learning experience’
Results 68 of 77 (88.3%) students completed the MedEdIQ Site survey 19 evals of residency sites 49 at non-residency sites 70 completed evaluations of preceptors 15 students at residency sites 55 at non-residency sites No difference in proportion of students responding from residency or non-residency sites (p = 0.67) 5 peds and 1 int med faculty eval excluded from analysis
Learning Opportunities “The opportunities were too diverse, preventing me from developing proficiency” 31.6% agreed* at residency sites 8.2% agreed* at non-residency sites p = 0.0146 *mildly agree, agree, strongly agree
Site Environment “I did not feel like a useful member of the health care team” 31.6 % agreed* at residency sites 8.2 % agreed* at non-residency sites P = 0.0146 “The health care team was not supportive of my learning” 15.8% agreed* at residency sites 0.0% agreed* at non-residency sites P = 0.0044 *mildly agree, agree, strongly agree
Participation No differences between residency and community sites Seven Items History Exam Lab interpretation Radiology Explaining pathophysiology Discussing assessment & diagnosis Planning treatment & patient education
Preceptor No differences in 14 items measuring preceptor actions Trend: Brought to my attention physical findings that I had not previously seen 1.8% agreed* for faculty at non-residency sites 13.3% agreed* for faculty at residency sites P = 0.0507 *mildly agree, agree, strongly agree
Project Strengths Project Weaknesses Good survey response rate Validated survey tool Small numbers Student perceptions vs direct observation, logs or other objective evaluation Project Weaknesses
Conclusion While students have comparable levels of clinical participation and faculty instruction, students placed at residency sites may be overwhelmed with diverse opportunities and have a less supportive learning environment than students placed at non- residency sites
Next Steps Collect second semester data Refine with focus groups Improve site preparation for students Consider associating sites with exam performance
STFM Predoctoral Education Conference 2010 Thank You Jacob Prunuske, MD, MSPH Terri Kulie, MD David Deci, MD STFM Predoctoral Education Conference 2010