Do patients' comfort levels and attitudes regarding medical student involvement vary across specialties?

Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, Canada.
Medical Teacher (Impact Factor: 1.82). 03/2008; 30(1):48-54. DOI: 10.1080/01421590701753443
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Studies on patient comfort with medical student involvement have been conducted within several specialties and have consistently reported positive results. However, it is unknown whether the intrinsic differences between specialties may influence the degree to which patients are comfortable with student involvement in their care.
This is the first study to investigate whether patient comfort varies across specialties.
A total of 625 patients were surveyed in teaching clinics in Family Medicine, Obstetrics/Gynaecology, Urology, General Surgery, and Paediatrics. Seven patient attitudes and patients' comfort levels based on student gender, level of training, and type of clinical involvement were assessed.
Patients in all specialties shared similar comfort levels and attitudes regarding medical student involvement for the majority of parameters assessed, suggesting that findings in this area may be generalised between specialties. Most of the inter-specialty variation found pertained to patient preference for student gender and the genitourinary specialties.
As there are numerous specialties that have never undergone a similar investigation of their patients, this study has important implications for medical educators in those specialties by supporting their ability to apply the results and recommendations of studies conducted in other specialties to their own.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study introduces a comprehensive model to explain patients’ prosocial behavioral intentions to participate in clinical training. Using the helping decision model, the authors analyze the combined impact of factors that affect participation intentions. The model includes intrapersonal and interpersonal appraisals triggered by an awareness of the societal need for clinical training as a practical part of medical education. The results of our empirical study (N = 317) show that personal costs and anxiety as negative appraisals and a warm glow as a positive appraisal affect participation intentions and fully mediate the effect of the patient's awareness of the societal need. The study results indicate that communication strategies should address patient beliefs about negative personal consequences of participation rather than highlighting the societal need for practical medical education related to clinical training. Based on the results, medical associations could develop guidelines and provide training for physicians on how to motivate patients to participate in clinical training, resulting in more patient-centered standardized consent discussions.
    Health Policy 06/2014; · 1.55 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Opportunities for medical students to engage in deliberate practice through conducting patient assessments may be declining, but data on the numbers of patients assessed by students during training are lacking. Purposes: The study described relationships between the frequency of patient assessments, student confidence, belief they had seen sufficient patients, and their perceptions of barriers and facilitators of seeing patients. Methods: We employed survey methodology to estimate the number of patient assessments conducted across 6 rotations in the 1st year of clinical training, gather ratings of confidence and student belief they had conducted sufficient patient assessments, and barriers and facilitators of seeing patients. Results: Rotations focused on general medicine and surgery provided more opportunities for patient assessments than specialist rotations (all p < .001). Students conducting more than 10 patient assessments rated confidence in conducting patient assessments and belief they had seen enough patients for their clinical learning, higher than students who saw 10 or fewer patients (all p < .001). Conclusions: Our study demonstrated variation in the frequency of patient assessments, and weak relationships between numbers of assessments, student confidence, and barriers to seeing patients. Further investigation is warranted of the impact of fewer opportunities for deliberate practice of skills for expertise development.
    Teaching and Learning in Medicine 01/2014; 26(2):153-9. · 0.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Curricula in most western medical universities include teaching in the primary care setting as core elements. This affects GP-teachers, their patients and their interaction. Therefore, it was the aim of this study to assess the influence of the presence of medical students in the teaching practice on the attitudes of both GPs and patients. Seventy-four GP-preceptors were invited to answer an online survey. Patients attending consultations with a medical student present completed questionnaires either before the consultation (WR group) or immediately after consultation (AC group). Fifty- nine preceptors completed the online survey. Physicians showed positive attitudes towards their activities as preceptors: 95% expressed a positive attitude predominantly towards being a role model and to represent the discipline and for 64% remuneration was not important. In 28 practices 508 questionnaires were completed by patients in the WR-group and 346 by the AC-group. Only 12% (WR) and 7.2% (AC) of patients expressed a preference for being seen by the doctor alone. While 16% of doctors rated that confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship is compromised, only 4.1% (WR) and 1.7% (AC) of patients felt so. The motivation to be a preceptor is primarily driven by personal and professional values and not by economic incentives. Further, patients have even more positive attitudes than the preceptors towards the presence of students during their consultation. Reservations to teaching students in GP-practices are, therefore, unwarranted.
    BMC Medical Education 01/2013; 13:83. · 1.41 Impact Factor