1. Educational Referent in University Hospital Philippe BARRIERE Maître de Conférence – Praticien Hospitalier Chirurgie Maxillo-Faciale

2. Introduction Created in Strasbourg in 2007 Follows from hospital organization – Clinical departments combination – “Pôles”

3. Referent’s role Organization and coordination of: – Theoretical education – Clinical medical students training courses in the clinical departments Educational team – Fully qualified teachers: Professor, Master of Conference – Temporary teachers: Assistants

4. Difficulties Recent audit of the referent’s function Email questionnaire – 36 questions Yes/No Simple or multiple choice response – Free comments

5. Results and discussion Response rate: 50% – 11 / 22 Demographic data – 10 Professors – 1 “Master of conference” Need of expertise?

6. Naming modalities The only volunteer: 7/11 – Among them One “named volunteer” – Means: Unrecognized function Content Means of action

7. Referent’s training IU Diploma in Medical Pedagogy: 7/11 How referents feel about trainng to the function: – 1/11 name the Medical Pedagogy Diploma – 10/11 declare no specific training Unrecognized function New lecture in the Medical Pedagogy Diploma

8. Geographical data One referent for 5 departments (2-7) – 7 poles are monodisciplinary ones – 4/11 poles made of adjoining departments – 2/11 poles different buildings in the same site – 3/11 poles different sites Geography may reduce contacts in the educational team

9. Educational team ? Mean workforce: 12 members Professors 6 (2-7) Master of conference 1 (0-3) Assistants 6 (2-10) – Geographical scattering – Hierarchy relationships – Educational vocation vs obligation

10. Recognition of the referent Among the pole’s teachers – Yes 4/11 – May impede the function – Need of communication between referent and the educational team

11. Recognition of the referent By the administration of Medical Faculty – Yes 9/11 – Problem when referent ≠ head of department Information still destinated to head of department Need of the better communication from the Faculty – Mailing list ? – Annual meeting of referents ?

12. Recognition of the referent By the students: 4/11 feel recognized – Bad public exposure of the function – Students are posted in a department, not in a pole – Need of specific meeting between referent and students Create a true pedagogical relationship Ameliorate problems recognition

13. Referent / teachers interactions 6/11: no interactions Interaction subjects: – Planning and logistics: 4/11 – Teaching program: 3/11 – Technics in pedagogy: 2/11 Administration tasks > educational action

14. Conclusion of the audit Better primary training – IU Diploma with specific lecture on the “referent” Ameliorate public exposure of the referent – Reinforce the educational team – Ameliorate educational problem recognition Improve the communication – In the educational team – Between Faculty and referents