PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10136840

Audit in general practice: students and practitioners learning together.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To describe and evaluate the use of medical audit in general practice as an educational activity shared by undergraduate medical students and general practitioners. DESIGN: A descriptive study, evaluated by a questionnaire survey of all participating practices and by results of completed student projects on general practice audit topics during three weeks in the first year of completed projects (1990-1). SETTING: One university department of general practice, collaborating with 18 general practices in contract with Liverpool Family Health Services Authority. PARTICIPANTS: 150 medical students, working in groups of two to six, and the general practitioners with whom they worked in 18 practices. MAIN MEASURES: The nature of topics proposed by practices and chosen by the students; methods of audit used by students; reported effects of the audits on the practices; general practitioners' opinions of the projects' usefulness to the practice. RESULTS: The range of topics was wide, and both quantitative and qualitative methods were used. Fifteen of the 18 questionnaires sent out were completed. Six practices reported that the final project had changed substantially after joint planning with the students. Two thirds (10) attached high value to the audits and were making changes in the delivery of care as a result. CONCLUSIONS: Medical audit "project work" by medical undergraduates is an effective tool for motivating students to learn and can lead to change in the clinical setting in which it occurs. IMPLICATIONS: By meeting the learning needs of both undergraduates and established practitioners audit project work has wider application within medical education.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P Campion, I Stanley, M Haddleton. 1992. Audit in general practice: students and practitioners learning together.. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.1.2.114

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Conditional reliability of admissions interview ratings: extreme ratings are the most informative.

CONTEXT: Admissions interviews are unreliable and have poor predictive validity, yet are the sole measures of non-cognitive skills used by most medical school admissions departments. The low reliability may be due in part to variation in conditional reliability across the rating scale. OBJECTIVES: To describe an empirically derived estimate of conditional reliability and use it to improve the predictive validity of interview ratings. METHODS: A set of medical school interview ratings was compared to a Monte Carlo simulated set to estimate conditional reliability controlling for range restriction, response scale bias and other artefacts. This estimate was used as a weighting function to improve the predictive validity of a second set of interview ratings for predicting non-cognitive measures (USMLE Step II residuals from Step I scores). RESULTS: Compared with the simulated set, both observed sets showed more reliability at low and high rating levels than at moderate levels. Raw interview scores did not predict USMLE Step II scores after controlling for Step I performance (additional r2 = 0.001, not significant). Weighting interview ratings by estimated conditional reliability improved predictive validity (additional r2 = 0.121, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Conditional reliability is important for understanding the psychometric properties of subjective rating scales. Weighting these measures during the admissions process would improve admissions decisions.

Education, Medical, Undergraduate↗