Consistency of teaching in parallel surgical firms: an audit of student experience at one medical school

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Traditional clinical clerkships have been based on the apprenticeship model of learning, with opportunistic teaching by doctors on presenting patients. Students at King's College School of Medicine, London had expressed concern that they were receiving inequitable experiences in different clerkships. This had become more apparent since the introduction of a school-wide end-of-year skills assessment. We decided to assess the consistency of delivery of the surgical syllabus. METHOD: A multistage questionnaire survey was undertaken with third-year (first clinical year) undergraduate medical students on surgical clerkships. The questionnaire required students to record topics about which they had been taught, and practical skills on which they had been supervised, from the surgical syllabus pertaining at the time. RESULTS: 194 (46.4%) questionnaires were returned. A low level of consistency was reported in the teaching of theoretical topics and practical skills across surgical clerkships in eight different locations. There were substantial differences, both in overall coverage of the syllabus and in the priority given to different topics. There were no overall differences between teaching hospital- and district general hospital-based clerkships. DISCUSSION: Students in so called 'parallel' clerkships did not receive comparable teaching. The traditional opportunistic nature of clinical teaching led, in effect, to individual curricula within each clerkship. The General Medical Council has called for a core curriculum to be delivered across different clinical sites within each medical school. To achieve this, medical schools may need to introduce guidelines to direct teaching in the same way that clinical protocols have been developed to achieve greater standardization in clinical practice.