4.5 Article

Can final year medical students significantly contribute to patient care? A pilot study about the perception of patients and clinical staff

Journal

MEDICAL TEACHER
Volume 32, Issue 7, Pages 552-557

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/01421590903437170

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Active participation of medical students in patient care has been shown to be important for professional development of learners. Not much is known about the impact of active student participation (ASP) to the quality of patient care. Aims: We established a Clinical Education Ward (CEW) for the final year medical students caring for patients under structured clinical supervision. This study investigates the views of both patients and clinical staff on the impact of ASP on patient care. Methods: The Picker Inpatient Questionnaire (PIQ) was used to survey all the patients admitted to the CEW during the pilot phase. Results concerning the general quality of health care and the patient-physician relationship (PPR) were compared to two matched pair control groups: patients of the same department (CG1) and of internal wards in Germany (CG2). In addition, quantitative and qualitative data were collected from patients and clinical staff members to specify the impact of students on patient care. Results: Out of 111 patients, 64 responded. The PIQ results revealed very minor problems in the assessment of the overall general quality of care and in PPR at the CEW, while significant improvements existed when compared to CG2. Furthermore, 79% of the patients and 95% of the staff members recorded a positive impact of ASP. Qualitative data illustrated and complemented these results. Chances and challenges in programs with high participation of students in clinical care are discussed. Conclusion: ASP may not only be useful for learners but also offers chances and benefits for patient care.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available