gms | German Medical Science

Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Medizinische Ausbildung (GMA)

14.09. - 17.09.2016, Bern, Schweiz

Which Factors Facilitate the first two months (first phase) of the Clinical Elective Year: Qualitative Results from Student Interviews

Meeting Abstract

  • presenting/speaker Samuel Beck - Zürich, Schweiz
  • Christian Schirlo - Zürich, Schweiz
  • Rainer Weber - Zürich, Schweiz
  • corresponding author Jan Breckwoldt - Zürich, Schweiz

Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Medizinische Ausbildung (GMA). Bern, 14.-17.09.2016. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2016. DocFL-16-686

doi: 10.3205/16gma169, urn:nbn:de:0183-16gma1691

Published: September 5, 2016

© 2016 Beck et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. See license information at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.


Outline

Text

Research Question: Entering a Clinical Elective Year (CEY) is a demanding transition phase for undergraduate medical students. Students become members of a professional team, thereby participating in routine care and executing responsible tasks. Little is known about the factors which facilitate (or impede) this process. With this study we wanted to explore respective experiences of students during the first phase in their new role, at the beginning of the 5th year of studies.

Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 5th year medical students after they had completed the first two months of their CEY. Students were asked which problems they faced during these two months. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and then analysed by qualitative content analysis. Comments were classified into the main categories “preparation”, “working experience”, and “framing conditions”, and into sub-categories.

Results: From 28 interviews, 867 comments were identified and subsequently categorized. Most comments related to “working experience” (519), followed by “preparation” (276) and “framing conditions” (72). Overall, most students were satisfied with their start into the CEY (n=24). They were satisfied with their learning progress, working experiences, responsibilities and team integration. They expressed divergent opinions about teaching and supervision they received, their own performance and identification with the job. More support in advance was demanded and better supporting structures in the hosting institution.

Discussion: Our data highlight that students were generally satisfied with the first two months of their CEY. Most positive factor was to receive good teaching and to get responsibility for specific tasks / pieces of work. Better support was requested in respect to preparation by university, formal teaching and supervision by their clinical supervisors during CEY.

Take Home Message: First starting points have been identified to improve CEY.


References

1.
Dornan T, Littlewood S, Margolis SA, Scherpbier A, Spencer J, Ypinazar V. How can experience in clinical and community settings contribute to early medical education? A BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2006;28(1):3-18. DOI: 10.1080/01421590500410971 External link
2.
Dupuis M, Schirlo C. The clinical electives year in undergraduate medical training in Switzerland: an overview. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2012;106(2):85-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2011.12.006 External link
3.
Lave J, Wenger E. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1991. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511815355 External link
4.
Mayring P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz; 2010. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-531-92052-8_42 External link