Introduction: Students' clinical, communication, and professionalism skills are best assessed when faculty directly observe clinical encounters with patients. Prior to 2009, third-year medical students at our institution had one observed clinical encounter by clinic-based faculty during a required internal medicine clerkship. These observations averaged 45 minutes, feedback was not standardized, and student and faculty satisfaction was low. Methods: Two hospital-based faculty members redesigned a shorter, standardized exercise during which a faculty member observed the student making rounds on a hospitalized patient that they were actively following. On a checklist, faculty recorded observations about communication (8 items), physical examination (5 items), and professionalism (4 items). Faculty provided immediate feedback. Results: Faculty's direct observation of medical students prerounding on hospitalized internal medicine patients averaged 27 minutes including the feedback to students. In one year, 67/71 (94%) students completed the exercise; records were available for 66 (99%) of these encounters. Time of observation averaged 13.5 minutes (range 3-26 minutes). Feedback averaged 13.4 minutes (range 8-25 minutes). Faculty provided feedback in the following areas (proportion of students): Communication (66/66, 100%); examination skills (63/66, 95%); and professionalism (65/66, 98%). Forty-three students (64%) completed an anonymous satisfaction survey. Thirty-nine of these (91%) found the exercise useful or very useful (average 5-point Likert score = 4.30) and 38 (88%) found it easy or very easy to schedule (average 5-point Likert score = 4.30). Discussion: Students found this exercise useful and easy to schedule. Faculty consistently provided feedback to students in areas of communication, physical examination, and professionalism.

No abstract

Background:Guidance from the European Association for Haemophilia and Allied Disorders (EAHAD) sets out the educational milestones haemophilia nurses should aim to achieve. However, little is known about the resources nurses use for education and current awareness.Aims:To assess the current educational level of haemophilia nurses, how and where they access ongoing education, where they feel they need extra support, and how best this teaching could be delivered.Methods:Haemophilia nurses in the Haemnet Horizons group devised and piloted a questionnaire. This was distributed in hard copy to nurses attending the 2019 EAHAD Congress and promoted as an online survey hosted by Survey Monkey.Results:Seventy-five replies were received from nurses in Europe (46 in the UK), and two from nurses in Chile and the Philippines. Most described their role as ‘specialist nurse’, with the majority having worked in haemophilia care for up to ten years. Half had a nursing degree and one quarter had a nursing diploma. Three quarters had attended at least one course specifically related to haemophilia nursing. Almost all used academic sources, study days and the websites of health profession organisations as information sources. Most also used Google or Wikipedia, but fewer used Twitter. Patient association websites were more popular among non-UK nurses. About half attended sponsored professional meetings and three quarters reported that educational meetings were available in their workplace. A clear majority preferred interactive and face-to-face activities using patient-focused content.Conclusions:The study shows that nurses, predominantly in Western Europe, access a range of educational resources, most of which are ‘traditional’. Use of online sources is high, but social media are less popular than Google or Wikipedia. Further research is needed to explore the potential of new media for haemophilia nurse education, and whether the current educational levels and needs highlighted in the survey remains the same across the whole of Europe.

No abstract