Premium
An inter‐university community child health clinical placement programme for medical students
Author(s) -
O'Keefe Maree,
White Deirdre,
Spurrier Nicola,
Fox Nicole
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
medical education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.776
H-Index - 138
eISSN - 1365-2923
pISSN - 0308-0110
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00765.x
Subject(s) - agency (philosophy) , likert scale , tracking (education) , medical education , scale (ratio) , community health , medicine , health care , psychology , family medicine , nursing , public health , pedagogy , political science , sociology , social science , developmental psychology , physics , quantum mechanics , law
Background Inpatient teaching no longer reflects the full spectrum of paediatric practice and community‐based programmes with clearly defined aims and evaluation of learning are becoming increasingly important. Competition for community resources poses threats to the delivery of effective community child health learning programmes by individual medical schools. Objectives To develop and evaluate a combined inter‐university, child‐focused, active learning programme in community child health. Methods A total of 55 postgraduate‐entry medical students from the Flinders University of South Australia and 97 undergraduate‐entry University of Adelaide students were placed with 25 community child health agencies and instructed to assess services from a client perspective by tracking one child and family through multiple agency contacts. Following each placement, achievement of specific programme aims was evaluated by students and agency staff using a 7‐point Likert scale. Results Students and agency staff indicated substantial achievement of programme aims. Mean agency ratings were significantly higher than student ratings for three aims: students’ experiencing a wider spectrum of health care problems than in teaching hospitals (5·7 ± 1·5 versus 4·9 ± 1·6, P < 0·001); the importance of social and environmental factors (5·9 ± 1·0 versus 5·2 ± 1·4, P < 0·001), and the importance of coordinating care (6·0 ± 1·0 versus 5·2 ± 1·2, P < 0·001). Ratings from undergraduate‐entry students differed from those of postgraduate‐entry students only with respect to the importance of social and environmental factors (4·8 ± 1·4 versus 5·7 ± 1·1, P < 0·001). Conclusions The new collaborative Community Child Health Programme substantially achieved learning aims and demonstrated effective integration of postgraduate‐ and undergraduate‐entry medical students from two universities.