To determine the level of satisfaction among medical students of a public sector medical university regarding their academic activities

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>An ongoing evaluation system is essential to determine if the academic system in place has worked to produce a better product, hence the objective of our study was to evaluate the satisfaction level among medical students regarding their academic teaching and assessment method and what measures will they suggest for the future to rectify the current situation.</p> <p>This questionnaire based cross sectional study was conducted in a public sector medical university from February to July 2010. A well structured questionnaire was administered to a random sample of 375 final year medical students. However 292 of the students provided informed consent and filled in the questionnaire which included their demographic profile as well as questions in line with the study objective. Data was entered in a Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version.16) and analyzed using descriptive statistics.</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>The male to female ratio in our study was 1:2. Most of the students (57.2%) were dissatisfied with the quality of teaching in the university. Fifty-seven percent of the participants believed that the current standard of their institute were not at par with those of international medical universities. BCQ's were the mode of examination questions preferred by the majority of the students. Most of the students (66.1%) wanted the university to conduct career planning seminars to help them plan their career.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>These results suggest that the students of public sector medical universities are unsatisfied from current academic facilities and teaching activities. Students recommend increased emphasis on better lectures and practical training as well as a need to incorporate career planning sessions for the students to help plan them their future career paths.</p

Job requirements compared to medical school education: differences between graduates from problem-based learning and conventional curricula

Background: Problem-based Learning (PBL) has been suggested as a key educational method of knowledge acquisition to improve medical education. We sought to evaluate the differences in medical school education between graduates from PBL-based and conventional curricula and to what extent these curricula fit job requirements. Methods: Graduates from all German medical schools who graduated between 1996 and 2002 were eligible for this study. Graduates self-assessed nine competencies as required at their day-to-day work and as taught in medical school on a 6-point Likert scale. Results were compared between graduates from a PBL-based curriculum (University Witten/Herdecke) and conventional curricula. Results: Three schools were excluded because of low response rates. Baseline demographics between graduates of the PBL-based curriculum (n = 101, 49% female) and the conventional curricula (n = 4720, 49% female) were similar. No major differences were observed regarding job requirements with priorities for "Independent learning/working" and "Practical medical skills". All competencies were rated to be better taught in PBL-based curriculum compared to the conventional curricula (all p < 0.001), except for "Medical knowledge" and "Research competence". Comparing competencies required at work and taught in medical school, PBL was associated with benefits in "Interdisciplinary thinking" (Δ + 0.88), "Independent learning/working" (Δ + 0.57), "Psycho-social competence" (Δ + 0.56), "Teamwork" (Δ + 0.39) and "Problem-solving skills" (Δ + 0.36), whereas "Research competence" (Δ - 1.23) and "Business competence" (Δ - 1.44) in the PBL-based curriculum needed improvement. Conclusion: Among medical graduates in Germany, PBL demonstrated benefits with regard to competencies which were highly required in the job of physicians. Research and business competence deserve closer attention in future curricular development

Clinical performance-based test sensitivity and specificity in predicting first-year residency performance

To assess the use of a standardized-patient-based postclerkship examination (PCX) to predict students' performances in their first year of residency, the authors used data from 202 students of the classes of 1987, 1988, and 1990 at the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine. The PCX was found to be more sensitive than specific in that it identified more correctly those students who received high ratings in their first year of residency than those who received low ratings. Consequently, while the rate of false negatives was low across the three classes, the rate of false positives was relatively high. Analyses of the supervisors' written comments on residents' performances indicated that more than half of the false positives and false negatives resulted mostly from problems found with the supervisors' ratings, rather than from the inaccuracy of the PCX in predicting students' residency performances. The supervisors' ratings did not always match their written comments and did not always represent pure assessments of the residents' cognitive performances. Finally, because of the large number of missing residency performance ratings among the graduates who had performed unsatisfactorily on the PCX, it is expected that the sensitivity of the PCX may be overestimated and its specificity underestimated. Overall, the results suggest that the standardized-patient-based PCX is a useful indicator of students' readiness for and performance in residency

The use of performance-based assessment scores and traditional measures in predicting first-year residency performance

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between students' performance on a performance-based clinical examination and their subsequent performance during the first year of residency. Additionally, its purpose is to further examine the relationship between the performance-based clinical examination and existing measures of clinical competence (clerkship ratings, and NBME Part I and II scores)