Search

Background: Little is known about evaluation practices as well as performance-oriented allocation of resources according to teaching quality at German medical schools. For this reason, the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany and the German Association of Medical Faculties aimed to analyse current practices at German medical schools.Methods: Data were collected by a questionnaire which was sent to all medical schools in Germany.Results: 30 medical schools with 33 undergraduate medical programs participated in the survey (response rate: 83%). The evaluation tools used at these schools mainly assessed structural and procedural aspects of teaching and were designed to obtain overall student ratings of teaching quality. Evaluation tools were quite heterogeneous across the sample, and some uncertainty remained with regard to the psychometric properties of these tools and whether they meet international quality standards. Various algorithms underlying resource allocation for teaching are being used, but most focus on quantity rather than quality of teaching. Conclusion: A nationwide agreement on a generalizable definition of high-quality teaching is desirable. At the same time, reliable and valid tools measuring teaching quality need to be identified and/or created. This could be accomplished through a wider collaboration of medical schools and could represent an advancement for the allocation of resources for high-quality teaching.

Background and objective: Evaluation is an integral part of education in German medical schools. According to the quality standards set by the German Society for Evaluation, evaluation tools must provide an accurate and fair appraisal of teaching quality. Thus, data collection tools must be highly reliable and valid. This review summarises the current literature on evaluation of medical education with regard to the possible dimensions of teaching quality, the psychometric properties of survey instruments and potential confounding factors.Methods: We searched Pubmed, PsycINFO and PSYNDEX for literature on evaluation in medical education and included studies published up until June 30, 2011 as well as articles identified in the “grey literature”. Results are presented as a narrative review.Results: We identified four dimensions of teaching quality: structure, process, teacher characteristics, and outcome. Student ratings are predominantly used to address the first three dimensions, and a number of reliable tools are available for this purpose. However, potential confounders of student ratings pose a threat to the validity of these instruments. Outcome is usually operationalised in terms of student performance on examinations, but methodological problems may limit the usability of these data for evaluation purposes. In addition, not all examinations at German medical schools meet current quality standards.Conclusion: The choice of tools for evaluating medical education should be guided by the dimension that is targeted by the evaluation. Likewise, evaluation results can only be interpreted within the context of the construct addressed by the data collection tool that was used as well as its specific confounding factors.

[english] Objective: The evaluation of medical research performance is a key prerequisite for the systematic advancement of medical faculties, research foci, academic departments, and individual scientists’ careers. However, it is often based on vaguely defined aims and questionable methods and can thereby lead to unwanted regulatory effects. The current paper aims at defining the position of German academic medicine toward the aims, methods, and consequences of its evaluation. Methods: During the Berlin Forum of the Association of the Scientific Societies in Germany (AWMF) held on 18 October 2013, international experts presented data on methods for evaluating medical research performance. Subsequent discussions among representatives of relevant scientific organizations and within three ad-hoc writing groups led to a first draft of this article. Further discussions within the AWMF Committee for Evaluation of Performance in Research and Teaching and the AWMF Executive Board resulted in the final consented version presented here.Results: The AWMF recommends modifications to the current system of evaluating medical research performance. Evaluations should follow clearly defined and communicated aims and consist of both summative and formative components. Informed peer reviews are valuable but feasible in longer time intervals only. They can be complemented by objective indicators. However, the Journal Impact Factor is not an appropriate measure for evaluating individual publications or their authors. The scientific “impact” rather requires multidimensional evaluation. Indicators of potential relevance in this context may include, e.g., normalized citation rates of scientific publications, other forms of reception by the scientific community and the public, and activities in scientific organizations, research synthesis and science communication. In addition, differentiated recommendations are made for evaluating the acquisition of third-party funds and the promotion of junior scientists.Conclusions: With the explicit recommendations presented in the current position paper, the AWMF suggests enhancements to the practice of evaluating medical research performance by faculties, ministries and research funding organizations.

[english] Background: The rapid progress of psychosomatic research in cardiology and also the increasing impact of psychosocial issues in the clinical daily routine have prompted the Clinical Commission of the German Heart Society (DGK) to agree to an update of the first state of the art paper on this issue which was originally released in 2008.Methods: The circle of experts was increased, general aspects were implemented and the state of the art was updated. Particular emphasis was dedicated to coronary heart diseases (CHD), heart rhythm diseases and heart failure because to date the evidence-based clinical knowledge is most advanced in these particular areas. Differences between men and women and over the life span were considered in the recommendations as were influences of cognitive capability and the interactive and synergistic impact of classical somatic risk factors on the affective comorbidity in heart disease patients.Results: A IA recommendation (recommendation grade I and evidence grade A) was given for the need to consider psychosocial risk factors in the estimation of coronary risks as etiological and prognostic risk factors. Furthermore, for the recommendation to routinely integrate psychosocial patient management into the care of heart surgery patients because in these patients, comorbid affective disorders (e.g. depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder) are highly prevalent and often have a malignant prognosis. A IB recommendation was given for the treatment of psychosocial risk factors aiming to prevent the onset of CHD, particularly if the psychosocial risk factor is harmful in itself (e.g. depression) or constrains the treatment of the somatic risk factors. Patients with acute and chronic CHD should be offered anti-depressive medication if these patients suffer from medium to severe states of depression and in this case medication with selective reuptake inhibitors should be given. In the long-term course of treatment with implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) a subjective health technology assessment is warranted. In particular, the likelihood of affective comorbidities and the onset of psychological crises should be carefully considered.Conclusions: The present state of the art paper presents an update of current empirical evidence in psychocardiology. The paper provides evidence-based recommendations for the integration of psychosocial factors into cardiological practice and highlights areas of high priority. The evidence for estimating the efficiency for psychotherapeutic and psychopharmacological interventions has increased substantially since the first release of the policy document but is, however, still weak. There remains an urgent need to establish curricula for physician competence in psychodiagnosis, communication and referral to ensure that current psychocardiac knowledge is translated into the daily routine.

Background and objective: To increase the practical orientation of medical student education in Germany, we have introduced a new mandatory course into the 3rd study year. This course combines doctor-patient communication training sessions with practical skills such as taking blood, changing dressings, etc. The primary care point of view to these topics was emphasized. The study describes the course and an evaluation of its effects on basic medical skills.Methods: Learning progress was measured using an anonymous self-evaluation questionnaire. Students graded their own competence in each individual course element using a 1-6 point scale (1='excellent' to 6='insufficient'). To objectify the learning process with regards to both practical skills and communicative competence we performed an "Objective Structured Clinical Examination" (OSCE).Results: Complete data are available from 154 of the 193 students participating in the course (average age 23.7 ±2.7 years). With regards to their competence in taking a case history, participants rated themselves with an average score of 3.99 before the course and an improved average score of 2.42 afterwards (P