Surgical teaching program for our senior medical students: room for improvement

Figures & data

Figure 1 Student response to question 1: [This aspect of the surgical program] provided a helpful method of teaching (n=44).

Figure 2 Student response to question 2: [This aspect of the surgical program] improved my knowledge base of surgery (n=44).

Figure 3 Student response to question 3: [This aspect of the surgical program] improved my understanding of surgery (n=44).

Figure 4 Student response to question 4: [This aspect of the surgical program] was useful in preparation of my long case clinical examination (n=44).

Figure 5 Student response to question 5: [This aspect of the surgical program] was useful in preparation for my written examinations (n=44).

Figure 6 Student response to question 6: [This aspect of the surgical program] improved my competence in surgical clinical skills (n=44).

Table 1 Responses to open-ended questions regarding the most useful and recommended improvements

Comment representation*	Theme	Student exemplar comments (n=44)
Lectures (most useful features)
14 (32%)	The lectures covered the curriculum and were engaging	“They covered the essential components of the core curriculum really well and were very engaging.” “[…] comprehensive. Covered all surgical specialties.”
Lectures (recommendations for improvement)
22 (50%)	As the lectures are given in the first term only, they should be recorded for revision closer to the examinations	“Could have been repeated/reinforced closer to the exams in year 4.” “Have lectures available online. They would have been fantastic over both clinical years.”
Tutorial (most useful features)
18 (41%)	Having access to a surgical senior consultant, and consistency of tutor	“The ability to ask questions as we go. They were thorough.” “Teaching from an expert […] consistently with the same tutor.”
17 (39%)	The clinical relevance provided by the surgical senior consultant	“They helped frame the surgical approach to situations/presentations in my textbooks.” “The tutorials were informative and clinically relevant.”
9 (21%)	The small group, and interactive nature of the tutorials	“Small group-based discussions.” “The Socratic method of teaching and the range of topics covered.”
Tutorial (recommendations for improvement)
3 (7%)	Additional tutorials	“More of them (double).”
Presentation (most useful features)
14 (32%)	Variety and diversity of topics	“They were engaging and reflected a diverse range of surgical cases.” “Some were very engaging and gave me a good case of specialties I have an interest in.”
5 (11%)	Presence of senior surgical consultants to answer questions and give feedback	“Participation, attendance by surgical supervisors to answer questions in their field.” “When the surgeons attended and answered questions.”
5 (11%)	Opportunity to develop presentation and communication skills	“Preparing a thorough presentation and receiving feedback was good practice for long cases. It was also really interesting and useful to see how the standard improved over the two years.” “Good practice for presentation skills.”
Presentation (recommendations for improvement)
There were no recommendations for improvement
Clinical attachment (most useful features)
11 (25%)	Being integrated into the team provided increased learning opportunities	“A few of the teams just naturally made me part of the teams. That led to lots of teaching and skills development.” “The willingness of some teams to integrate students – I was very involved.”
Clinical attachment (recommendations for improvement)
8 (18%)	Students would like to feel part of a team	“I found the team was quite difficult to integrate into.” “More active teaching and formal supervision.”
7 (16%)	Students would like clinical attachments to more general surgical teams	“The problem was we had no general surgery. I felt I covered very little from the curriculum during my surgical term.” “If you get a specialized attachment it can be hard to get general surgical teaching.”

Note:

* Percentage scores do not necessarily total 100% due to some respondents expressing more than one given response.