Deficiency areas in decision making in undergraduate medical students

Abstract

Background

In family medicine, decisions can be difficult due to the early presentation of often poorly developed symptoms or the presentation of undifferentiated conditions that require competencies unique to family medicine, such as; primary care management, specific problem-solving skills, and a comprehensive and holistic approach to be taught to medical students.

Purpose

The aim of this study was to assess the decision-making process covering all theoretical aspects of family practice consultation and to recognize possible areas of deficiency in undergraduate medical students.

Materials and methods

This was a cross-sectional, observational study performed at the Medical School of the University of Maribor in Slovenia. The study population consisted of 159 fourth-year medical students attending a family medicine class. The main outcome measure was the scores of the students’ written reports on solving the virtual clinical case. An assessment tool consisted of ten items that could be graded on a 5-point Likert scale.

Results

The final sample consisted of 147 (92.5%) student reports. There were 95 (64.6%) female students in the sample. The mean total score on the assessment scale was 35.1±7.0 points of a maximum 50 points. Students scored higher in the initial assessment items and lower in the patient education/involvement items. Female students scored significantly higher in terms of total assessment score and in terms of initial assessment and patient education/involvement.

Conclusion

Undergraduate medical education should devote more time to teaching a comprehensive approach to consultation, especially modification of the health behavior of patients and opportunistic health promotion to patients. Possible sex differences in students’ performance should be further evaluated.

Keywords:

• assessment
• family medicine
• undergraduate medical education
• decision making

Author contributions

ZKK and JK conceived and coordinated the study. ZKK carried out the data analysis and ZKK and JK interpreted the results. Both authors drafted, revised and approved the final manuscript.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.