Search

Aim: Due to the lockdown caused by the Corona pandemic, the internship (PJ=practical year) seminars of the elective subject “General Practice” at Ruhr-University Bochum had to be transferred on short notice into online teaching formats via a digital platform. At the end of these new online course, the four students evaluated the comprising 16 teaching units.Methods: The seminars, each comprising four teaching units, took place in online blended-learning units and online events. After completing the seminar program, the four participants filled out a written questionnaire regarding the implementation of digital teaching, quality of teaching content, acceptance as well as advantages and disadvantages of the teaching format.Results: The acceptance of digital teaching was very high among students. Advantages and disadvantages of this teaching format compared to the previous face-to-face events became apparent; a positive assessment of the possibilities of the online format clearly prevailed, as competence-oriented, interactive aspects were very well implemented.Conclusion: Due to the need of switching to digital teachings formats, new, innovative perspectives have arisen for PJ teaching in Bochum as well as for the more distant second location Ostwestfalen-Lippe. This is particularly true with regard to centralised seminar offers despite decentralised training centres. When implementing “new” licensing regulations this creates an opportunity for general practice to include teaching practices in training throughout the country.

Having teaching staff with didactic qualifications in university teaching leads to a measurable improvement in academic skills among students. Previous recommendations on the type and scope of medical didactic qualification measures primarily apply to teaching staff at university and in-patient settings. The situation of primary care medicine, which often employs external lecturers and whose teaching takes place to a considerable extent in decentralized training facilities (teaching practices) is not adequately addressed.Taking into account a survey on the status quo at higher education institutions for General Practice in Germany, recommendations for minimum standards are made, based on national and international recommendations on the content and scope of medical didactic qualification measures.These recommendations include preliminary work by the Personnel and Organizational Development in Teaching (POiL) Committee of the Society for Medical Education (GMA), the MedicalTeachingNetwork (MDN), the Society of University Teaching Staff in General Medicine (GHA) as well as the experiences of the committee members, who hail from the field of general medicine, internal medicine and pediatrics amongst others.

Introduction: An oral exam (30-60 minutes) is administered at the end of every post-graduate medical specialty program or is required to attain additional specialized qualifications. In both undergraduate and post-graduate medical education oral exams are not considered to be very objective or reliable. To improve the quality of exams in medical specialties, the Regional Medical Association for South Baden (Bezirksärztekammer Südbaden) decided in 2013 to offer a training program for head examiners and others responsible for administering exams in medical specialties.Project Description: Following a survey of examiners and examinees conducted from January through June, 2013, on the difficulty level of examination questions, satisfaction with the test, and the need for training in administering exams, the first workshop of its kind was designed. Since 2013, six workshops with a total of 93 participants have been held and evaluated.Results: The evaluations (response rate: 86%) showed a high level of acceptance for the concept behind the training. A large number of participants felt the need to define minimum standards for exams, to standardize the required level of difficulty and the assessment criteria in each subject, and to give examiners the appropriate tools needed to improve the validity and reliability of the exams.Conclusion: Offering a training program for those responsible for administering medical specialty exams appears to be both meaningful and necessary in order to meet the existing need for increased validity and reliability. In light of the initial experiences with this workshop and the differing percentages of failed exam attempts nationwide, the implementation of examiner training is to be recommended in other regions in Germany. In other European countries examiners conducting medical specialty exams undergo appropriate training before administering their first exam.

[english] During their studies to become medical professionals, all students are obliged to become familiar with various aspects of primary care. The aim is to provide all students with a high quality training which ensures the best possible cooperation across all sectors of the medical system. Primary care comprises the primary use of the medical service by an unfiltered set of patients as well as continued patient care – including home-care.This position paper was developed together with representatives of the German Society of University Teachers of General Practice (GHA), the German Society for Ambulatory General Paediatrics (DGAAP), the German Society of General Practice and Family Medicine (DEGAM) and the German Society for Internal Medicine (DGIM).It includes recommendations for teaching in the field of primary care in four different types of internships such as preclinical work experience (“Hospitation”), 4-week clinical traineeships of a casual nature (“Famulatur”) and 2-week courses of structured and assessed clinical training (“Blockpraktikum”) as well as a broad-based 4-month elective clinical placement in the final year (known as a practical year, “PJ”).The recommendations encompass structural and process criteria for internships in different general practices.In addition, for the first time recommendations for teaching on campus – in the fields of general medicine, paediatrics, numerous cross-sectional areas and other clinical fields, but also for clinical skills training – are set down here. In this position paper the intention is to demonstrate the possible ways in which more aspects of primary care could be integrated into undergraduate medical training.

[english] Aims: In most German medical faculties, credits in general practice can be earned via exams using multiple-choice questions (MCQ). Measures such as peer-reviews may help assure the quality of these exams. In order to use time and personnel intensive peer reviews effectively and efficiently, the procedures used are key. Therefore, we wanted to find out whether there are differences between group and individual reviews regarding defined parameters.Methods: We conducted a controlled cross-over study with three GP reviewers from four different German universities. Each reviewed 80 MCQs, 40 individually and 40 within a group, including external assessments by a panel of experts. Furthermore all reviewers were asked to evaluate the review process and the time spent carrying out these reviews.Outcomes: We found no significant differences between the reliability and the validity of individual reviews versus group reviews. On average slightly more time was spent on group reviews compared with the individual reviews. The subjective assessments of the study participants regarding their satisfaction with the process and the efficiency and effectiveness of the reviews suggest a preference for group reviews.Conclusions: Based on this study, there are no definite recommendations for or against either approach. When choosing between the two, the specific work structures and organisation at the local faculty should be taken into account.[german] Zielsetzung: Im Fach Allgemeinmedizin werden die obligat zu benotenden Leistungsnachweise an vielen Hochschulstandorten über Klausuren mit Multiple-Choice-Fragen (MCF) erbracht. Zur Qualitätssicherung bietet sich u.a. ein Peer-Review-Verfahren der eingesetzten MCF an. Für die optimale Effektivität und Effizienz solcher zeit- und personalintensiven Peer-Reviews ist nicht zuletzt die Verfahrensweise von Bedeutung. Ziel der Studie war es zu untersuchen, ob sich Einzel- von Gruppen-Reviews hinsichtlich definierter Parameter unterscheiden. Methodik: In einer kontrollierten Studie mit cross-over Design, durchgeführt mit je drei allgemeinmedizinischen Reviewern vier verschiedener deutscher Hochschulstandorte, wurden die Beurteilungen der Reviewer von 80 MCF (für jeden Teilnehmer jeweils 40 im Einzel-, 40 im Gruppen-Review) mit externen Beurteilungen durch ein Expertengremium und untereinander verglichen. Daneben wurden über Fragebögen subjektive Einschätzungen der Studienteilnehmer zum Review und der Zeitaufwand erfasst.Ergebnisse: Statistisch signifikante Unterschiede in der Validität und Reliabilität fanden sich zwischen Einzel- und Gruppen-Review nicht. Der Zeitaufwand für die Gruppen-Reviews lag im Mittel etwas höher als für die Einzel-Reviews. Die subjektiven Einschätzungen der Studienteilnehmer zur Zufriedenheit mit dem Review-Prozess, der Effektivität und Wichtigkeit der Reviews lassen auf eine Präferenz für den Gruppen-Review schließen.Schlussfolgerungen: Eindeutige Empfehlungen für oder gegen die Durchführung eines der beiden Review-Verfahren lassen sich aufgrund der Studienergebnisse nicht abgeben. Die spezifische Arbeitsstruktur und –organisation sowie die Präferenzen der Mitarbeiter an den einzelnen Hochschulstandorten sollten bei der Wahl des Verfahrens berücksichtigt werden.