Patient Perceptions of Having 1st- and 2nd-Year Medical Students Involved in Their Care

Abstract

Background: Medical student education has shifted to earlier clinical experiences and increased use of ambulatory settings. Little is known about patient perceptions of having 1st- and 2nd-year medical students involved in their care. Purposes: The purpose of this article is to study patient perceptions of having 1st- and 2nd-year medical students involved in their care in an ambulatory setting. Methods: In 2011 we surveyed 314 patients seen in 2 primary care clinics who saw 1st- or 2nd-year medical students. The survey included questions regarding patient visit satisfaction and perception of overall quality of the visit, adequacy of visit time, benefit of having a student involved in their care, and willingness to see a student in clinic again. Comparisons were made for patients who saw a student and a preceptor (n = 201) and patients who saw only the preceptor (n = 113). Results: Overall visit satisfaction was very high for patients who saw students (83% very satisfied) and patients who saw only the preceptor (91% very satisfied). More than 95% of patients were satisfied with the visit time, and all patients rated the overall quality of their visit as good or excellent. Eighty-five percent of patients would want to see a student again or had no preference. Forty-three percent of patients felt the presence of a student added value to their visit. White patients were more likely than non-White patients to be very satisfied with their visit and rated the overall quality of the visit as excellent. There were no differences based on student gender or year of training. Conclusions: Our results suggest that 1st- and 2nd-year students can be successfully integrated into clinical settings while maintaining patient satisfaction and perceived value of the care they receive.

Keywords:

• patient perceptions
• medical student education
• ambulatory

Acknowledgments

This study was granted an exemption regarding ethical approval by the Cleveland Clinic Institutional Review Board. We thank Robert Butler and Slava Polubnev for their assistance with this project and Michael Rothberg, MD, for comments on the manuscript.