Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation of Clinical Education in Medical Schools of Iran: A Cross Sectional Study

Aeen Mohammadi, R Mojtahedzadeh, A Enzevaei

Abstract


149

Background and Purpose: Future generalists require in depth exposure to primary care practice and the opportunity to work with successful generalist role models.Changes in hospital practice, patient availability, increased student numbers and their expectations and a redefinition of expected learning outcomes are changing the emphasis of clinical teaching away from traditional

inpatient settings towards ambulatory care. In this study we evaluated the quality and quantity of clinical training in medical schools of Iran, and ranked the schools according to each category of criteria.

Methods: In the first step an expert committee devised the criteria and indicators for evaluation of the quality and quantity of clinical education and the weights were determined with the consensus developing techniques among the expert committee members. The questionnaire was developed and

after data collection the schools’ scores were calculated according to the scoring instructions and the final analysis was performed.

Results: Regarding the quantitative criteria, i.e. the number and facilities of the clinics, Tehran Medical School, and according to the qualitative criteria, i.e. the quality of clinical training at each school, Sanandaj Medical School gained the first ranks. This is while the presence of residents in these schools is not alike.

Conclusion: Quantity and quality of clinical training in a medical school are not necessarily congruent. It seems that some factors like the presence of residents in teaching clinics can influence the students’ training.

Key words: CLINICAL EDUCATION, QUALITY, QUANTITY, OUTPATIENT EDUCATION, CLINICAL TRAINING


Keywords


CLINICAL EDUCATION, QUALITY, QUANTITY, OUTPATIENT EDUCATION, CLINICAL TRAINING

Full Text:

PDF

65

References


Baldor RA, Brooks WB, Warfield ME, O’Shea K. A survey of primary care physicians’ perceptions and needs regarding the precepting of medical students in their offices. Med Edu 2001; 35:789-795.

Burke W, Baron RB, Lemon M, Losh D, Novack A. Training generalist physicians: structural elements of the curriculum. J Gen Int Med. 1994 Apr;9(4 suppl 1):S23-30.

Kneebone R, Nestel D. Learning clinical skillsthe place if simulation and feedback. The Clinical Teacher. 2005 Dec;2(2):86-90.

Dent JA. AMEE Guide No 26: clinical teaching in ambulatory care setting: making the most of learning opportunities with outpatients. Med Teacher. 2005;27(4):302-315.

Lesky LG, Hershman WY. Practical approaches to a major educational challenge. Training students in the ambulatory setting. Arch Int Med 1995 May8;155(9):897-904.

Harden RM, Sowden S, Dun WR. Some educational on curriculum development: the SPICES model. Med Edu. 1984;18:284-297.

Seabrook MA, Lawson M, Baskerville PA. Teaching and learning in day surgery units: a UK survey. Med Edu1997;31:105-108.

Lenaz M. Clinical education in the ambulatory care setting. Conn Med 1997 Oct;61(10):673-674

Satran L, Harris IB, Allen S, Anderson DC, Poland GA, Miller WL. Hospital-based versus community-based clinical education: comparing

performance and course evaluations by students in their second-year pediatric rotation. Acad Med 1993 May;68(5):380-382.

Fuller GN. Clinical training of specialist registrars in neurology: the registrar’s perspective. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London. 1999 Jan-Feb;33(1):56-59.

Jain S. Orienting family medicine residents and medical students to office practice. Fam Med 2005;37(7):641-643.

General characteristics, curriculum and Syllabus of general medical education, Ministry of Health and Medical Education, The Supreme

Council for Planning, approved in 1985.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.22037/jme.v10i1.706

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.