Search

• Since 1960, most newer medical schools have been community-based and have used existing community hospitals and a large number of volunteer faculty. As these schools have evolved, many have developed more traditional characteristics. To assess the positive and negative features of these new schools, chairs of departments of surgery from 21 community-based medical schools and 17 traditional schools were surveyed to acquire information on policies and practices related to faculty development, undergraduate and graduate education, hospital relationships, clinical activities, research, and relationships with community physicians. Responses were analyzed and compared. Most community-based schools have succeeded in their mission, partly at the expense of controls usually found in more traditional schools. ( Arch Surg . 1991;126:1122-1127)

The purpose of the study on which this article is based was to determine differences in interviewing skills between third-year medical students who were provided structured, evaluative feedback and those assessed via traditional feedback methods. Experimental group students received a written assessment for every orthopedic hospital patient worked up, while the control group received traditional assessment feedback. Comparison measures were made based on student performance on a simulated patient examination. Results indicated that students who were provided structured feedback scored significantly higher (p less than .05) than those assessed by traditional assessment means.

The purpose of this study was to determine if objective performance measures from a simulated patient practical examination were related to faculty subjective assessments of surgery students' performance. Another purpose was to determine if those students performing well on a simulated patient practical examination were the same students awarded honor ratings by faculty. Faculty ratings of students (n = 72) on history taking ability, physical exam skills, problem identification, use of investigations, problem integration, patient management, and patient relations skills were correlated with objective measures on these same criteria achieved on a practical exam employing three simulated patient cases. Correlations were also calculated to study the relationship between practical exam scores and honor rating recipients. Results indicated significant relationships between faculty subjective ratings and practical exam outcomes on all practical examination skills except physical exam skills and patient management skills. Findings also indicated the performance of honor students on the practical examination was significantly better than non-honor students on two skills: history-taking and patient relations. The implications of these research findings are discussed.

The purpose of the study reported in this article was to examine first-year medical students' attitudes toward their free time and how these attitudes relate to self-reported stress levels. Members of the entering class of 1982-83 at the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine were asked to complete surveys designed to measure perceived stress and leisure attitudes. The results indicated a significant negative correlation between the total leisure scale and the stress scale. This correlation supported the hypothesis that students who perceived that they had high stress levels scored low on the leisure attitude scale. These findings suggest a need for educating students about the benefits of well spent leisure time as a stress management mechanism that is important in coping with daily pressures and anxieties.

A fourth-year curriculum survey was forwarded to surgery resident program directors, clerkship directors, and residents. A 37 percent response rate was achieved with comparable representation of each respondent type from 130 institutions. The purpose of the survey was to determine how each of the 3 respondent types rated the importance of 42 subjects or clinical experiences to be taken in the fourth year of medical school for students pursuing surgical careers. The survey also included questions on such issues as externships, early match programs, and guidelines used at their institutions for their fourth year students. The results indicated a significantly high agreement among respondent types on what should comprise surgical students' fourth-year curriculum content. The majority feel the fourth year should be planned by students with an electives advisor to equally add breadth to their general professional education as well as provide prerequisite experiences in the career-chosen discipline.

In the research reported here, the authors compared (a) the abilities of third- and fourth-year students and physicians to solve problems requiring review of current literature with (b) the information-seeking procedures of the three groups in researching those problems. The subjects were given a patient care question to answer, and logs were maintained to document their information-seeking processes. The findings indicated no differences among the three groups in accurately solving patient care problems; a difference in information-seeking processes between third-year students and physicians; and no differences between third-year and fourth-year students or between physicians and fourth-year students in their approaches to seeking information. Mean scores indicated that all three groups need additional training on accessing the literature in making patient care decisions.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether or not suspected variables affected a surgery clerk's chances of being awarded an honor rating. Findings indicated a significant relationship between a student receiving an honor rating and his or her preceptor's predetermined level of student advocacy, the number of completed patient interview and physical examination write-ups, and final examination scores. There was no significant relationship found between honor ratings and the preceptor's status, the sequence in which the student was discussed or the length of time spent discussing the student at the final evaluation meeting, or the number of clinical faculty present at the meeting. These results lend support to the faculty forum evaluation approach, but suggest a need for further scrutiny of some influencing variables to ensure all students are fairly considered and honor ratings judiciously awarded.