C Offergeld1, M Neudert2, T Zahnert2, M Fischer3, J Günther4, M Giesler4. 1. Klinik für Hals-Nasen-Ohrenheilkunde, Medizinische Fakultät, Universitätsklinikum Freiburg, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Killianstr. 5, 79106, Freiburg, Deutschland. christian.offergeld@uniklinik-freiburg.de. 2. Klinik und Poliklinik für HNO-Heilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Dresden, TU Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland. 3. Klinik für Hals-Nasen-Ohrenheilkunde, Kopf- und Halschirurgie, Schwarzwald-Baar Klinikum, ALK, Universität Freiburg, Villingen-Schwenningen, Deutschland. 4. Studiendekanat der Medizinische Fakultät, Kompetenzzentrum Evaluation in der Medizin Baden-Württemberg, MERLIN Medical Education Research, Lehrforschung im Netz BW, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current German medical licensing system from 2013 dictates the mandatory keeping of logbooks for final year students. A field-specific logbook for the practical year was created by the national otorhinolaryngology (ORL) society in 2012, which has been in use since then in all academic teaching and university hospitals nationwide. OBJECTIVE: After this time interval it seemed appropriate to evaluate this logbook for its usefulness by associate lecturers and students. The objectives were whether the actual learning targets could be considered relevant, suitable and feasible concerning department location, practical and clinical education for medical students. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 165 associate lecturers of all registered national ORL departments were asked to participate using a 2-step evaluation. The logbook was evaluated by 77 lecturers in general and 17 lecturers also evaluated each of the 78 learning targets. Out of the 24 final year students from the Universities of Freiburg and Dresden who were contacted, 16 evaluated the logbook. RESULTS: Analysis demonstrated that the ORL logbook was used in 55% without alterations to the content and in 36% a medical faculty-specific logbook was used. The lecturers' judgement revealed no significant differences between the two logbooks. They approved the 78 learning targets with a majority vote of between 60-100%. Only 3 learning targets (otoacoustic emission, rhinomanometry and sonography) showed approval of less than 60%, associated with a request for modifications. Students evaluated the ORL logbook as being significantly better than the faculty's version concerning practical education. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrated the nationwide acceptance of the ORL logbook by lecturers and students. The amount of critical learning targets which will have to be changed is moderate. This evaluation confirmed the relevance and balance of the ORL logbook content in the practical year training and the possibility of use independent of the location of ORL departments.
BACKGROUND: The current German medical licensing system from 2013 dictates the mandatory keeping of logbooks for final year students. A field-specific logbook for the practical year was created by the national otorhinolaryngology (ORL) society in 2012, which has been in use since then in all academic teaching and university hospitals nationwide. OBJECTIVE: After this time interval it seemed appropriate to evaluate this logbook for its usefulness by associate lecturers and students. The objectives were whether the actual learning targets could be considered relevant, suitable and feasible concerning department location, practical and clinical education for medical students. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 165 associate lecturers of all registered national ORL departments were asked to participate using a 2-step evaluation. The logbook was evaluated by 77 lecturers in general and 17 lecturers also evaluated each of the 78 learning targets. Out of the 24 final year students from the Universities of Freiburg and Dresden who were contacted, 16 evaluated the logbook. RESULTS: Analysis demonstrated that the ORL logbook was used in 55% without alterations to the content and in 36% a medical faculty-specific logbook was used. The lecturers' judgement revealed no significant differences between the two logbooks. They approved the 78 learning targets with a majority vote of between 60-100%. Only 3 learning targets (otoacoustic emission, rhinomanometry and sonography) showed approval of less than 60%, associated with a request for modifications. Students evaluated the ORL logbook as being significantly better than the faculty's version concerning practical education. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrated the nationwide acceptance of the ORL logbook by lecturers and students. The amount of critical learning targets which will have to be changed is moderate. This evaluation confirmed the relevance and balance of the ORL logbook content in the practical year training and the possibility of use independent of the location of ORL departments.
Entities:
Keywords:
Hospitals, university; Learning; Medical education; Students, medical; Supervision
Authors: Sebastian M Jud; Susanne Cupisti; Wolfgang Frobenius; Sigrid Benn; Andrea Winkler; Sophia Antoniadis; Matthias W Beckmann; Felix Heindl Journal: Eur J Med Res Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 2.175
Authors: C Offergeld; M Ketterer; M Neudert; F Hassepaß; N Weerda; B Richter; L Traser; C Becker; N Deeg; A Knopf; T Wesarg; A-K Rauch; T Jakob; F Ferver; F Lang; V Vielsmeier; S Hackenberg; M Diensthuber; M Praetorius; B Hofauer; N Mansour; S Kuhn; T Hildenbrand Journal: HNO Date: 2020-09-14 Impact factor: 1.284