Reflecting on Experiences of Senior Medical Students’ External Clinical Teaching Visits in General Practice Placements: A Pilot Study

Figures & data

Table 1 Components of the Quantitative Instrument (Assessment Tool)

Phase of Consultation Quantitative instrument	Below Year level Expectation	Meet Year level Expectation	Above Year level Expectation
Introduction: Students’ self-introduction	Inappropriate Wording and Body Language	Appropriate Wording and Body Language	Appropriate Wording and Body Language
Introduction: Empathy and Rapport Building	Inappropriate acknowledgement, patient unease	Appropriate acknowledgement, patient at ease	Appropriate acknowledgement, patient at ease
History Taking: Attentively Listening	Inadequate and lacking	Adequate but not complete	Adequate and complete
History Taking: Nonverbal clues follow-up	Inadequate and lacking	Adequate but not complete	Adequate and complete
History Taking: Relevant question style/framework	Inadequate and lacking	Adequate but not complete	Adequate and complete
History Taking: Eye Contact and Avoid Jargon	Lacking and inappropriate	Adequate and appropriate	Adequate and appropriate
History Taking: Psychosocial Factor consideration	Inappropriate and not relevant	Appropriate and relevant	Appropriate and relevant
History Taking: Problem List definition	Inadequate, inappropriate and not relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant
Physical Exam: Relevancy to history taking	Inappropriate and not relevant	Appropriate and relevant	Appropriate and relevant
Physical Exam: Revised Problem List definition	Inadequate, inappropriate and not relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant
Investigation: GP clinic Bedside Investigation	Inadequate, inappropriate and not relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant
Investigation: Routine and special Investigation	Inadequate, inappropriate and not relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant
Investigation: Revised Problem List definition	Inadequate, inappropriate and not relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant
Diagnosis: Final Problem List definition	Inadequate, inappropriate and not relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant
Diagnosis: Initial Presenting Complaint defined	Inadequate, inappropriate and not relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant
Management: Action for each defined problem	Inadequate and inappropriate action	Adequate and appropriate action	Adequate and appropriate action
Management: Time & Resource allocation	Inadequate, inappropriate and not relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant
Management: Patient Explanation & Involvement	Inadequate, inappropriate and not relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant
Management: Illness Prevention, Health Promotion	Inadequate, inappropriate and not relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant
Closing summary: Timing and Follow-up Arrangement	Inadequate, inappropriate and lacking	Adequate, appropriate and relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant
Closing summary: Empathy demonstration	Inadequate, inappropriate and lacking	Adequate, appropriate and relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant
Closing summary: Level of Confidence	Inadequate and lacking	Adequate, appropriate and relevant	Adequate, appropriate and relevant
Closing summary: Overall Rating of Performance	Below expected year level standards	Meeting expected year level standards	Above expected year level standards

Table 2 The Interview Questionnaires Include Seven Pre-Designed Questions

1	How and what benefits have this teaching model provided in Improving CR learning with its five domains?
2	In what ways has this teaching model Improved clinical competence?
3	How has this teaching model Broadened salient learning points?
4	In what ways has this teaching model made Feedback discussion with supervisors more constructive and interactive?
5	How does this teaching model affect your OSCE exam preparation?
6	Is there any Limitation from students’, patients’ and supervisors’ perspectives regarding this teaching model?
7	What effects of this teaching model on your Readiness to become an intern?

Table 3 Students’ Questionnaire Using 5-Point Likert Scale (“Pilot ECT Visit Feedback Form Evaluation: This Form is Designed to Provide Information to Medical Education Research Team and Your Responses Will Be Treated as Confidential”)

	1	2	3	4	5*
Do you believe this form gave you useful feedback regarding your clinical reasoning skills?
Do you believe this form gave you useful discussion prompts for your supervisors?
Would you like to use this form with all your ECT visits, supervised and unsupervised consultations?
Do you think your received assessment on this form were relevant to your year-level learning?
Were you able to discuss any perceived learning points with your supervisor?
Do you think your received assessment on this form were benefit to your ongoing learning?
Do you believe this form gave you self-reflection model for your postgraduate learning?

Notes: *1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree

Table 4 Outcomes of ECT Visits Using the Feedback Assessment Tool

Phase of Consultation Quantitative instrument	Students Below Year level Expectation	Students Meeting Year level Expectation	Students Above Year level Expectation
Introduction: Students’ self-introduction	0	Total 14 Australian 2 Chinese 12	Total 11 Australian 8 Chinese 3
Introduction: Empathy and Rapport Building	0	Total 14 Australian 2 Chinese 12	11 Australian 8 Chinese 3
History Taking: Attentively Listening	0	Total 11 Australian 3 Chinese 8	Total 14 Australian 7 Chinese 7
History Taking: Nonverbal clues follow-up	0	Total 11 Australian 3 Chinese 8	Total 14 Australian 7 Chinese 7
History Taking: Relevant question style/framework	0	Total 11 Australian 3 Chinese 8	Total 14 Australian 7 Chinese 7
History Taking: Eye Contact and Avoid Jargon	0	Total 11 Australian 3 Chinese 8	Total 14 Australian 7 Chinese 7
History Taking: Psychosocial Factor consideration	0	Total 11 Australian 3 Chinese 8	Total 14 Australian 7 Chinese 7
History Taking: Problem List definition	0	Total 11 Australian 3 Chinese 8	Total 14 Australian 7 Chinese 7
Physical Exam: Relevancy to history taking	0	Total 11 Australian 2 Chinese 9	Total 14 Australian 8 Chinese 6
Physical Exam: Revised Problem List definition	0	Total 11 Australian 2 Chinese 9	Total 14 Australian 8 Chinese 6
Investigation: GP clinic Bedside Investigation	0	Total 11 Australian 1 Chinese 10	Total 14 Australian 9 Chinese 5
Investigation: Routine and special Investigation	0	Total 11 Australian 1 Chinese 10	Total 14 Australian 9 Chinese 5
Investigation: Revised Problem List definition	0	Total 11 Australian 1 Chinese 10	Total 14 Australian 9 Chinese 5
Diagnosis: Final Problem List definition	0	Total 10 Australian 1 Chinese 9	Total 15 Australian 9 Chinese 6
Diagnosis: Initial Presenting Complaint defined	0	Total 10 Australian 1 Chinese 9	Total 15 Australian 9 Chinese 6
Management: Action for each defined problem	0	Total 12 Australian 5 Chinese 7	Total 13 Australian 5 Chinese 8
Management: Time & Resource allocation	0	Total 12 Australian 5 Chinese 7	Total 13 Australian 5 Chinese 8
Management: Patient Explanation & Involvement	0	Total 12 Australian 5 Chinese 7	Total 13 Australian 5 Chinese 8
Management: Illness Prevention, Health Promotion	0	Total 12 Australian 5 Chinese 7	Total 13 Australian 5 Chinese 8
Closing summary: Timing and Follow-up Arrangement	0	Total 12 Australian 5 Chinese 7	Total 13 Australian 5 Chinese 8
Closing summary: Empathy demonstration	0	Total 12 Australian 5 Chinese 7	Total 13 Australian 5 Chinese 8
Closing summary: Level of Confidence	0	Total 12 Australian 5 Chinese 7	Total 13 Australian 5 Chinese 8
Closing summary: Overall Rating of Performance	0	Total 12 Australian 5 Chinese 7	Total 13 Australian 5 Chinese 8

Table 5 Results of Students’ Questionnaire Using 5-Point Likert Scale (“Pilot ECT Visit Feedback Form Evaluation: This Form is Designed to Provide Information to Medical Educational Research Team and Your Responses Will Be Treated as Confidential”)

	1	2	3	4	5*
Do you believe this form gave you useful feedback regarding your clinical reasoning skills? Numbers of students in each scale				2	23
Do you believe this form gave you useful discussion prompts for your supervisors? Numbers of students in each scale				1	24
Would you like to use this form with all your ECT visits, supervised and unsupervised consultations? Numbers of students in each scale				3	22
Do you think your received assessment on this form were relevant to your year-level learning? Numbers of students in each scale				2	23
Were you able to discuss any perceived learning points with your supervisor? Numbers of students in each scale				1	24
Do you think your received assessment on this form were benefit to your ongoing learning? Numbers of students in each scale				1	24
Do you believe this form gave you self-reflection model for your postgraduate learning? Numbers of students in each scale				3	22

Notes: *1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree