Experiences of a student-run clinic in primary care: a mixed-method study with students, patients and supervisors

Figures & data

Figure 1. Description of the administration, organization and physical environment of the SRC.

Table 1. The results of the students’ evaluation, using pre-selected sections of the clinical learning environment, supervision and nurse teacher evaluation scale, are shown.

Student category	Medical students	Nursing students	Other students^a	Unspecified education^b	All students
CLES + T section	(n = 93)	(n = 59)	(n = 22)	(n = 25)	(n = 199)
Response rate*	67%^c	97%	73%	NA	87%
Educational atmosphere
Mean average rating	4.89	4.70	4.91	4.75	4.82
Median average rating	5.00	4.75	5.00	4.89	4.98
Range (min–max)	4.13–5.00	3.63–5.00	4.00–5.00	3.25–5.00	3.25–5.00
Highest rated item, number	4 and 9	9	6 and 9	9	9
Mean average rating of highest rated item	4.98	4.93	5.00	4.88	4.95
Lowest rated item, number	8	8	7 and 8	8	8
Mean average rating of lowest rated item	4.63	4.54	4.77	4.50	4.61
Premises of care**
Mean average rating	4.52	4.41	4.51	4.47	4.48
Median average rating	4.50	4.50	4.50	4.50	4.50
Range (min–max)	3.00–5.00	3.00–5.00	3.89–5.00	3.75–5.00	3.00–5.00
Highest rated item, number	15	15	15	15	15
Mean average rating of highest rated item	4.75	4.72	4.99	4.89	4.79
Lowest rated item number	14	14	14	14	14
Mean average rating of lowest rated item	4.18	3.98	3.91	4.01	4.07
Supervisory relationship***
Mean average rating	4.92	4.77	4.87	4.76	4.85
Median average rating	5.00	5.00	5.00	4.88	5.00
Range (min–max)	3.75–5.00	3.13–5.00	3.86–5.00	2.63–5.00	2.63–5.00
Highest rated item, number	18	21	18, 22, 23, 24	24	18 and 24
Mean average rating of highest rated item	4.97	4.85	4.94	4.92	4.91
Lowest rated item, number	20	20	19 and 20	20	20
Mean average rating of lowest rated item	4.81	4.55	4.64	4.47	4.67

Listed statements, highest and lowest rated items:

Pedagogical atmosphere: *p < .01 between student categories. (Pairwise comparisons: Medical students versus a) nursing students, p = <.01 b) other students, p = .52 c) unspecified students, p = .03. Other students were compared with a) nursing students, p < .01 b) and unspecified students, p < .01).

Item 4: There was a positive atmosphere at the unit. Item 6: The staff got to know the students by their personal names. Item 7: There were sufficient meaningful learning situations at the unit.8: The learning situations were multi-dimensional in terms of content. Item 9: The unit can be regarded as a good learning environment.

Premises of care at the unit: **p = .43 between student categories.

Item 14: The unit’s care philosophy was clearly defined. Item 15: patients received individual care.

Supervisory relationship: ***p = .03 between student categories. (Pairwise comparisons: Medical students versus a) nursing students, p < .01 b) other students, p = .05 c) Unspecified students, p < .01. Other students versus a) nursing students, p = .72 b) unspecified students, p = .21).

Item 18: My supervisor showed a positive attitude toward supervision. Item 19: I felt that I received individual supervision. Item 20: I continuously received feedback from my supervisor. Item 21: Overall I am satisfied with the supervision I received. Item 22: The supervision was based on a relationship between equality and promoted my learning. Item 23: There was mutual interaction in the supervisory relationship. Item 24: Mutual respect and approval prevailed in the supervisory relationship.

^a Includes evaluations for students in physiotherapy, occupational therapy and psychology.

^b Includes evaluations from students who have not provided information about their educational program.

^c Illustrates the minimum response rate, since additional responding students are included in the category ‘Unspecified education’.

Table 2. The results of the patients’ evaluation using the client satisfaction scale 8 are shown.

Visit type CSQ-8 result*	Medicine	Nursing	Other students^a	Inter-professional	Unspecified education^b	All^a
Response rate (%)	18%	7%	NA	NA	NA	NA
Number of questionnaires (n)	632	82	67	48	109	938
Mean total score	30.17	30.36	30.48	30.44	30.05	30.21
Median total score	31.00	31.00	31.04	31.53	31.00	31.00
Range (min–max)	17–32	22–32	24–32	24–32	18–32	17–32
Mean average rating	3.77	3.80	3.81	3.81	3.76	3.78
Median average rating	3.88	3.88	3.88	3.94	3.88	3.88
Range (min–max)	2.13–4	2.75–4	3.00–4	3.00–4	2.25–4	2.13–4
Highest rated question
Question number	7 and 8	2	4 and 8	8	7	7 and 8
Mean average rating	3.84	3.89	3.89	3.95	3.84	3.85
Lowest rated question
Question number	6	6	6	6	6	6
Mean average rating	3.51	3.58	3.64	3.60	3.54	3.53

* p = .45, between visit types.

^a Includes evaluations from patients who had seen a student in physiotherapy, occupational therapy and psychology. These students were collapsed into a single group to maintain integrity of the respondents.

^b Includes evaluations from patients who did not provide information about what professional category they met. NA: not applicable, see Methods section.

Listed statements, highest and lowest rated items:

Question 2: Did you get the kind of service you wanted? Question 4: If a friend were in need of similar help, would you recommend our? Question 6: Did the treatment you received help you to deal with your problems better? Question 7: How satisfied are you overall with you were to seek help again, would you contact our unit?