F Eitel1. 1. Chirurgische Klinik und Poliklinik, Klinikum Innenstadt, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The controversy about the value of current undergraduate medical education in Germany. PROBLEM: Are there empirical data about economic evaluation undertaken to investigate the value of medical education? METHOD: Case study. Literature review with MedLine. ENDPOINTS: Utility of the curriculum, indicated by (1) prevalence of vocational demands reflected in the curriculum content; (2) students' performance as MDs; (3) student's dissertation rate; (4) synthesis of basic sciences, clinical sciences and practical work; (5) mentoring provided by faculty; and (6) cost-benefit analyses. RESULTS: 1. Selection bias of clinical education: only 3% of the incidence of diseases are seen in university hospitals, the main educational experience in Germany. 2. No objective performance data available in Germany. 3.91% of the students wish wo write a dissertation, but only 38% of the graduates, by their third year, have attained that goal by receiving the title Dr. med. 4. Practical education in GP practice in the US and UK starts in the students' 1st year; in Germany, in the 4th year. 5. More mentoring is desired by 66% of the students. 6. No German cost-benefit analyses could be retrieved. CONCLUSION: We face a quantifiably severe crisis in medical education. An approach to quality management, of which economic evaluation is an integral part, would be suitable to improve teaching quality.
BACKGROUND: The controversy about the value of current undergraduate medical education in Germany. PROBLEM: Are there empirical data about economic evaluation undertaken to investigate the value of medical education? METHOD: Case study. Literature review with MedLine. ENDPOINTS: Utility of the curriculum, indicated by (1) prevalence of vocational demands reflected in the curriculum content; (2) students' performance as MDs; (3) student's dissertation rate; (4) synthesis of basic sciences, clinical sciences and practical work; (5) mentoring provided by faculty; and (6) cost-benefit analyses. RESULTS: 1. Selection bias of clinical education: only 3% of the incidence of diseases are seen in university hospitals, the main educational experience in Germany. 2. No objective performance data available in Germany. 3.91% of the students wish wo write a dissertation, but only 38% of the graduates, by their third year, have attained that goal by receiving the title Dr. med. 4. Practical education in GP practice in the US and UK starts in the students' 1st year; in Germany, in the 4th year. 5. More mentoring is desired by 66% of the students. 6. No German cost-benefit analyses could be retrieved. CONCLUSION: We face a quantifiably severe crisis in medical education. An approach to quality management, of which economic evaluation is an integral part, would be suitable to improve teaching quality.
Authors: S Schürer; D Schellberg; J Schmidt; F Kallinowski; A Mehrabi; Ch Herfarth; M W Büchler; M Kadmon Journal: Chirurg Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 0.955