What motivates young physicians? – a qualitative analysis of the learning climate in specialist medical training

BMC Medical Education

Georg Breuer³  Michaela Zupanic¹  Marzellus Hofmann¹  Peter Iblher² 

[1] Student Dean’s Office, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Alfred-Herrhausen-Str. 50, Witten, 58448, Germany;University of Lübeck Clinic for Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Ratzeburger Allee 160, Lübeck, 23538, Germany;Erlangen-Nürnberg University Clinic for Anaesthesiology, Krankenhausstr. 12, Erlangen, 91054, Germany

关键词: Curriculum;    Feedback;    Assessment;    Learning climate;    Postgraduate medical training;   

Others  :  1228663
DOI  :  10.1186/s12909-015-0461-8

 received in 2015-04-15, accepted in 2015-10-09,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Not least the much-invoked shortage of physicians in the current and the next generation has resulted in a wide range of efforts to improve postgraduate medical training. This is also in the focus of the current healthcare policy debate. Furthermore, quality and scope of available postgraduate training are important locational advantages in the competition for medical doctors. This study investigates the preferences and concerns that German house officers (HOs) have about their current postgraduate training. It also highlights how HOs evaluate the quality of their current postgraduate training and the learning environment.

Methods

HOs were asked to answer the question: “Which things are of capital importance to you personally in your medical training?”, using a free text format. The survey was conducted web based (Lime survey) and all data was anonymized. Summarizing qualitative analyses were performed using the software tool MaxQDA.

Results

A total of 255 HOs participated in this study (female: n = 129/50.6 %; male: n = 126/49.4 %; age: 32 + 6 years) associated with 17 different German hospitals and from four medical specialties. Ten categories were generated from a total of 366 free text answers: 1. methodology of learning (n = 66), 2. supervision (n = 66), 3. learning structure (n = 61), 4. teaching competence (n = 37), 5. dedication (n = 34), 6. work climate (n = 29), 7. feedback/communication (n = 22), 8. challenge/patient safety (n = 21), 9. time/resources (n = 17), 10. personal security/safety (n = 13).

Conclusions

HOs want a reliable and curriculum-guided learning structure. Different studying techniques should be used with sufficient (time) resources available in a trusting and communicative learning environment. Competent and dedicated instructors are expected to give individual and specific feedback to the HOs on individual strengths and deficits. Instructors should develop educational concepts in cooperation with the HOs and at the same time avoid excessive demands on HOs or hazards to patients.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Iblher et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Evaluation der Weiterbildung. http://www.evaluation-weiterbildung.de (German). Accessed 12 October 2015.
• [2]Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Obersten Landesgesundheitsbehörden, Bericht “Gesundheit und Demografie”, zur Vorlage auf der 87. Gesundheitsministerkonferenz. https://www.gmkonline.de/documents/TOP51BerichtP_Oeffentl_Bereich.pdf (German). Accessed 12 October 2015
• [3]Parry J, Mathers J, Al-Fares A, Mohammad M, Nandakumar M, Tsivos D. Hostile teaching hospitals and friendly district general hospitals: final year students’ views on clinical attachment locations. Med Educ. 2002; 36(12):1131-41.
• [4]Boor K, Scheele F, van der Vleuten CP, Scherpbier AJ, Teunissen PW, Sijtsma K. Psychometric properties of an instrument to measure the clinical learning environment. Med Educ. 2007; 41(1):92-9.
• [5]Genn JM. AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 23 (Part 2): Curriculum, environment, climate, quality and change in medical education - a unifying perspective. Med Teach. 2001; 23(5):445-54.
• [6]Roff S, McAleer S. What is educational climate? Med Teach. 2001; 23(4):333-4.
• [7]Rotem A, Bloomfield L, Southon G. The clinical learning environment. Isr J Med Sci. 1996; 32(9):705-10.
• [8]Mayring P. Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung; eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken. 5. Auflage ed. Weinheim und Basel, Beltz; 2002.
• [9]Bundesärztekammer (German Medical Education). http://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/pdf-Ordner/BAEKground/BAEKgroundspezial_DAET_2015_Web.pdf (German). Accessed 12 October 2015.
• [10]Kutscher PP. Ärztliche Führung: Feedback geben – Ehrlich und konkret. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2013; 110(51–52):2-0.
• [11]Hattie J. Lernen sichtbar machen. Hohengehren, Baltmannsweiher, Schneider Verlag; 2013.
• [12]Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 1990; 65(9 Suppl):S63-7.
• [13]Wass V, Van der Vleuten C, Shatzer J, Jones R. Assessment of clinical competence. Lancet. 2001; 357(9260):945-9.
• [14]Singh T, Modi JN. Workplace based assessment: a step to promote competency based postgraduate training. Indian Pediatr. 2013; 50(6):553-9.
• [15]Miller A, Archer J. Impact of workplace based assessment on doctors’ education and performance: a systematic review. BMJ. 2010; 341:c5064.
• [16]Korzilius H. Weiterbildung zum Facharzt: Der Nachwuchs ist unzufrieden. Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. 2014; 111(20):A-868-A-9.
• [17]Lammerding-Köppel M, Fabry G, Hofer M, Ochsendorf F, Schirlo C. Hochschuldidaktische Qualifizierung in der Medizin: I. Bestandsaufnahme: Ein Positionspapier des GMA-Ausschusses Personal- und Organisationsentwicklung für die medizinische Lehre der Gesellschaft für Medizinische Ausbildung sowie des Kompetenzzentrums für Hochschuldidaktik in Medizin Baden-Württemberg. GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2006;23(4):doc73.
• [18]Thomson J, Haesler E, Anderson K, Barnard A. What motivates general practitioners to teach. Clin Teach. 2014; 11(2):124-30.