["Closing the Gap": Results of a survey assessing quality assurance in medical education].

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to survey the current state of quality assurance of teaching at German-speaking medical faculties. Another aim was to determine whether and how the evaluation loop is closed.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent out to 45 German-speaking faculties in the DACH countries to determine how the faculties ensure quality of teaching. Information was collected on qualification programs offered to faculty, course evaluations (LVE), evaluations during the final year (PJ-E), and on the implementation of graduate surveys (ABS-B). Evaluable data sets are available from 29 of the 40 faculties that responded.

RESULTS

At almost all faculties, lecturers can take advantage of various didactic offers. Training programs for (M3) examiners (32%) and PJ supervisors (21%), on the other hand, are offered less frequently. Students at two-thirds of the faculties participate in the planning and implementation of LVEs, which are conducted at all faculties. Almost all faculties conduct PJ-E, and 72% of the faculties report interviewing graduates (ABS-B). However, the responsibility for conducting the ABS-B lies with the faculties themselves in only 48% of the cases. Twenty faculties report various additional teaching evaluations (e.g., evaluation of projects, progress tests). Indicators of teaching quality are mostly student satisfaction (LVE=93%, PJ-E=82%, ABS-B=100%), practical relevance of content (LVE=72%, ABS-B=100%) and quality of supervision (PJ-E=86%). The majority use questionnaires that are often self-developed (LVE=63%, PJ=78%). Surveys are mostly summative and either purely online (LVE=44%, PJ-E=81%, ABS-B=40%) or combined with paper (LVE=56%, ABS-B=60%). The majority of results are reported back to the academic deans in writing and/or as a presentation of results. In addition, faculties conduct results-based interviews with faculty/departments (LVE=79%, PJ=64%) and make binding goal agreements during these interviews (LVE=52%, PJ-E=50%). The survey results are often used to inform curricular development (LVE=79%, PJ-E=89%, ABS-B=80%). However, changes in the curriculum based on these results are not re-evaluated in all cases (LVE=83%, PJ-E=60%, ABS-B=63%).

CONCLUSION

This study provides an overview of the evaluation practice at German-speaking medical faculties. The number of evaluations carried out in the various areas related to teaching indicates that quality assurance of teaching is taken very seriously by medical faculties. However, there is still need for optimization in some areas: training programs for examiners and PJ supervisors should be offered more frequently to ensure teaching quality. It should also be examined whether the quality indicators used can be supplemented to include, for example, the indicator "giving appropriate feedback". Very often, self-developed questionnaires are used whose reliability and validity are questionable. The use of standardized questionnaires would be desirable in order to be able to adequately classify the results. In addition, the evaluation cycle is not closed with re-evaluations in all cases after curricular changes have been implemented. This is especially true of changes initiated by the PJ-E and ABS-B. .