[Project Report: Evaluation of the Practical Year (PY) at the Charité Medical School, University Medicine Berlin].

BACKGROUND

In Germany, the final year of medical school consists of a series of clinical externships termed "Practical Year" (PY). Logbooks have been introduced to document the clinical experience and the value of the teaching program (First Ordinance amending the Licensing Regulations for Physicians, July 14, 2012). However, little is known about how PY education is experienced by students, what problems they face, what support they seek to manage their problems, and how the logbooks contribute to training.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the PY education at the Charité Medical School (University Medicine Berlin) in terms of the requirement profile, quality of training, logbooks, satisfaction, and general conditions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We developed a questionnaire to assess PY education by relying on medical students' experiences. This tool was developed in parallel with the introduction of the logbooks. We contacted 6,068 students between May 2014 to September 2017 via e-mail. The students were asked to participate in the evaluation on a voluntary basis and answer 39 questions. The questionnaire was completed using an anonymous online form, taking into account legal data protection regulations.

RESULTS

We evaluated 1,957 questionnaires (31.1 %). The students were mostly satisfied (67.6 %) with their supervision. Patient encounters were, for the most part (85.5 %), perceived as informative, and the quality of continuing education as high (91.3 %), and most students (76.1 %) were directly involved in patient care. The students (87.8 %) felt that they had made progress during the PY teaching period, although the logbooks were rarely (14 %) used and apparently not reviewed by the teaching staff. The students judged some rotations harshly when they were dissatisfied with both teaching and supervision.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, the PY experience at the Charité was rated positively. Some rotations receiving poor evaluations desperately need to be reviewed. The role of the logbook seems to be imperfectly defined. The survey results suggest that further evaluation of our program is needed with ongoing participation of students and their representatives.