Display options
Cite
Laven G, Keefe D, Duggan P, et al. How was the intern year?: self and clinical assessment of four cohorts, from two medical curricula. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:123doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-123.
Laven, G., Keefe, D., Duggan, P., & Tonkin, A. (2014). How was the intern year?: self and clinical assessment of four cohorts, from two medical curricula. BMC medical education, 14123. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-123
Laven, Gillian, et al. "How was the intern year?: self and clinical assessment of four cohorts, from two medical curricula." BMC medical education vol. 14 (2014): 123. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-123
Laven G, Keefe D, Duggan P, Tonkin A. How was the intern year?: self and clinical assessment of four cohorts, from two medical curricula. BMC Med Educ. 2014 Jun 24;14:123. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-123. PMID: 24961171; PMCID: PMC4081487.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

BMC Med Educ. 2014 Jun 24;14:123. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-123.

How was the intern year?: self and clinical assessment of four cohorts, from two medical curricula.

BMC medical education

Gillian Laven, Dorothy Keefe, Paul Duggan, Anne Tonkin

Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, the University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. [email protected].

PMID: 24961171 PMCID: PMC4081487 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-123

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Problem-based curricula have provoked controversy amongst educators and students regarding outcome in medical graduates, supporting the need for longitudinal evaluation of curriculum change. As part of a longitudinal evaluation program at the University of Adelaide, a mixed method approach was used to compare the graduate outcomes of two curriculum cohorts: traditional lecture-based 'old' and problem-based 'new' learning.

METHODS: Graduates were asked to self-assess preparedness for hospital practice and consent to a comparative analysis of their work-place based assessments from their intern year. Comparative data were extracted from 692 work-place based assessments for 124 doctors who graduated from the University of Adelaide Medical School between 2003 and 2006.

RESULTS: Self-assessment: Overall, graduates of the lecture-based curriculum rated the medical program significantly higher than graduates of the problem-based curriculum. However, there was no significant difference between the two curriculum cohorts with respect to their preparedness in 13 clinical skills. There were however, two areas where the cohorts rated their preparedness in the 13 broad practitioner competencies as significantly different: problem-based graduates rated themselves as better prepared in their 'awareness of legal and ethical issues' and the lecture-based graduates rated themselves better prepared in their 'understanding of disease processes'.Work-place based assessment: There were no significant differences between the two curriculum cohorts for 'Appropriate Level of Competence' and 'Overall Appraisal'. Of the 14 work-place based assessment skills assessed for competence, no significant difference was found between the cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS: The differences in the perceived preparedness for hospital practice of two curriculum cohorts do not reflect the work-place based assessments of their competence as interns. No significant difference was found between the two cohorts in relation to their knowledge and clinical skills. However results suggest a trend in 'communication with peers and colleagues in other disciplines' (χ2 (3, N = 596) =13.10, p = 0.056) that requires further exploration. In addition we have learned that student confidence in a new curriculum may impact on their self-perception of preparedness, while not affecting their actual competence.

References

  1. BMC Med Educ. 2010 Nov 11;10:78 - PubMed
  2. Acad Med. 1993 Jan;68(1):52-81 - PubMed
  3. J Eval Clin Pract. 2001 Aug;7(3):311-24 - PubMed
  4. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2012 Sep-Oct;58(5):594-9 - PubMed
  5. Med Educ. 2000 Sep;34(9):729-38 - PubMed
  6. Med Teach. 2008;30(8):787-94 - PubMed
  7. Acad Med. 1993 Jul;68(7):550-63 - PubMed
  8. Med Educ. 2002 Jan;36(1):16-25 - PubMed
  9. BMC Med Educ. 2009 Oct 26;9:64 - PubMed
  10. Med Educ Online. 2010 Feb 26;15: - PubMed
  11. Lancet. 2004 Jan 10;363(9403):174 - PubMed
  12. Med J Aust. 2011 Oct 3;195(7):410-2 - PubMed
  13. Acad Med. 2000 Jan;75(1):66-70 - PubMed
  14. Med Educ. 2006 Oct;40(10):995-1001 - PubMed
  15. Acad Med. 2005 Oct;80(10 Suppl):S46-54 - PubMed
  16. Acad Radiol. 1999 Apr;6(4):229-35 - PubMed
  17. Med Educ. 1998 Jan;32(1):19-24 - PubMed
  18. BMJ. 2003 Feb 15;326(7385):385-7 - PubMed
  19. Med Educ. 2011 Oct;45(10):1006-15 - PubMed
  20. BMC Med Educ. 2011 Nov 24;11:99 - PubMed
  21. Med Princ Pract. 2009;18(1):1-9 - PubMed
  22. Med Educ. 2008 Mar;42(3):256-65 - PubMed
  23. Med Educ. 1994 Sep;28(5):418-31 - PubMed
  24. BMC Res Notes. 2009 Jul 27;2:152 - PubMed
  25. Med Teach. 2009 May;31(5):403-8 - PubMed
  26. Eur J Dent Educ. 2010 Feb;14(1):55-64 - PubMed
  27. Med Educ. 2013 Mar;47(3):292-300 - PubMed
  28. CMAJ. 2008 Jan 1;178(1):34-41 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types