![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
Background
To ensure the quality of surgical teaching within our graduate entry medical program, a distinctive surgical teaching program has been developed at Sydney Medical School-Central. Spanning 2 years, the program includes lectures, small group surgical clinical tutorials, and formal student surgical grand rounds presentations, plus clinical placements and attendance in operating theaters. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the program.
Methods
In 2013, at the completion of year 4, all graduating students (n=54) were asked to complete an open and closed-ended questionnaire regarding their experience of the surgical program.
Results
A total of 44/54 (81%) students completed the questionnaire. Students reported a high level of engagement with their experience in clinical tutorials, and a moderate level of engagement in surgical lectures. Students found the clinical attachment to be the least useful method of teaching, with the surgical grand rounds presentation also eliciting a poor response from students.
Conclusion
While both large group lectures and small group learner-centered teaching methods were highly valued by students, changes are needed to enhance clinical attachments for students in surgical wards. The benefits of students being made to feel part of a team during their surgical clinical attachments, along with adequate inpatient contact and formative feedback, should not be underestimated.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Professor George Ramsey-Stewart, clinical academic surgeon, who initially developed the program in 2000 in response to students’ concerns that the current program was not providing the prerequisite knowledge required for internship. This was achieved in consultation with the senior surgeons of the relevant surgical units.
Author contributions
AB, study concept and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of manuscript; CW, analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision of manuscript for important intellectual content; RQ, analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision of manuscript for important intellectual content; DO, analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision of manuscript for important intellectual content; and CM, analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision of manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Disclosure
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.