Shlomo M. Monnickendam MD, Shlomo Vinker MD, Simon Zalewski MD, Orli Cohen MD and Eliezer Kitai MD, and Research Group of the Department of Family Medicine, Tel Aviv University
Background: Patients’ consent to being part of medical education is often taken for granted, both in primary and secondary care. Formal consent procedures are not used routinely during teaching and patients are not always aware of teaching activities.
Objective: To investigate patients’ attitudes and expectations on issues of consent regarding participation in teaching in general practice, and the influence of a student’s presence on the consultation.
Methods: The study took place in 46 teaching practices during the sixth year clinical internship in family medicine. Patients completed questionnaires at the end of 10 consecutive eligible consultations. The questionnaire contained data on the willingness to participate in teaching, the preferred consent procedure and the effects of the student’s presence. The doctors were asked to estimate the sociodemographic level in their clinic area.
Results: A total of 375 questionnaires were returned; the response rate was not affected by the clinic’s sociodemographic level. Overall, 67% of the patients had come into contact with students in the past; 3.2% of the participants objected to the presence of a student during the consultation; 15% would insist on advance notification of the presence of a student, and another 13.9% would request it; 4% stated that the presence of students had a detrimental influence on the physical examination and history; and 33.6% would refuse to be examined by a student without the doctor’s presence.
Conclusion: Most patients agreed to have a student present during the consultation; some would like prior notification; a minority refused the student’s presence. A large minority would refuse to be examined without the tutor’s presence. Our findings need to be taken into account when planning clinical clerkships.
Rachel Dahan, MD, Shmuel Reis, MD, Doron Hermoni, MD and Jeffrey Borkan, MD
Rachel Dahan, MD, Shmuel Reis, MD, Doron Hermoni, MD and Jeffrey Borkan, MD
Howard Tandeter, MD and Martine Granek-Catarivas, MD
In countries in which a primary care-oriented system has developed, general practitioners, family physicians, and other primary care doctors are the keystone of an approach that aims to achieve high quality and satisfaction with relatively low costs. Despite this new trend, medical schools still produce excessive numbers of sub-specialists rather than prinary care physicians. Among multiple reasons influencing a career choice either towards or away from primary care (institutional, legislative, and market pressures), the present article discusses ways in which medical school curricula may affect students in their perceptions of the role of primary care physicians. Since students are greatly influenced by the cultures of the institutions in which they train, the negative attitude of university towards family medicine may negatively affect the number of students going into this specialty. Examples from Israeli faculties are presented.
Uzi Milman MD, Mordechai Alperin MD, Shmuel Reis MD, Riki Van-Ralte MA and Doron Hermoni MD BSc
Background: Most of the published documents proposing teaching objectives for undergraduate clerkships were prepared by expert bodies. Seldom have the clinical teachers, who are critical to the learning process and to the implementationof the teaching objectives, been the actual proponents of its core content.
Objective: To develop a national-scale proposal of teaching, objectives for the family medicine clerckship in medical school, using a consensus method and the actual, community-based teachers as the expert body.
Method: The Delphi method was chosen for that purpose. In the first round all 189 family medicine teachers in Israeli medical schools were asked to propose five teaching objectives. In the second round the objectives, which were generatedin the first round, were characterized by key words and were send to the participants as a second round for ranking according to their importance.
Results: A total of 116 family medicine teachers (61.38%) responded in the first round and 91 of the 116 (78.5%) in the second round. They formulated 51 teaching objectives listed in order of importance, covering a wide array of themes and including knowledge, attitude and skills objectives. The most important objectives were common problems in primary care, recognition of the biopsychosocial model, and understanding the importance of the doctor-patient relationship. The structure of the list provides a uniqe insight into the relative importance of each objective in the context of the whole core content of the clerkship.
Conclusions: Constructing a proposal for teaching objectives is feasible using the Delphi method and the field instructors as the selecting body. The process and its results can provide faculty with relevant and important suggestions on the content and structure of the family medicine clerkship.