4.5 Article

Attributes of effective community preceptors for pre-clerkship medical students

Journal

MEDICAL TEACHER
Volume 31, Issue 3, Pages 251-259

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01421590802139765

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Bureau of Health Professions [#D55HP03362-01-00, 2004-8]
  2. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute [#K07 HL079256-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Attributes of effective precepting of pre-clerkshop medical students in community settings are not adequately described. As part of preceptor needs assessment, we conducted site visits over three consecutive years. We also measured the preceptorships' educational quality, using students' post-rotation data, to identify priority areas for faculty development, corroborate site visit findings, and assess functions of the site visit. Methods: Three university faculty directly observed teaching encounters in 83 community preceptors' offices during a 12-18-week second year (pre-clerkship) medical student rotation. Data were collected on practice demographics, teaching content, and educational quality, using multiple measures. Narrative responses to interview questions were coded for prevalent themes. Student post-rotation assessments were obtained by anonymous online evaluations. Results: Good precepting attributes and suggestions for improvement were identified from both narrative analysis and student post-rotation evaluations in these key areas: independence in patient assessment, time spent teaching, giving feedback and orientation to the preceptors' practice. Student evaluations of preceptors' effectiveness significantly improved from year 1 to 2 and persisted into year 3. Appropriate faculty development strategies were derived from the combined results. Conclusions: The site visit by university faculty allows real-time observation and may itself be an effective intervention for improving teaching and learning.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available