BackgroundClinical teachers in medical schools are faced with the challenging task of delivering high-quality patient care, producing high-impact research and contributing to undergraduate medical education all at the same time. Little is known on the gap between an ‘ideal’ environment supporting clinical teachers to provide high quality teaching for their students and the reality of clinical teaching during worktime in the clinical environment. Most quantitative research published so far was done in a wide range of medical educators and did not consider individual academic qualifications. In this study, we wanted to survey clinical teachers in particular and assess the potential impact of individual academic qualification on their perceptions.MethodsBased on qualitative data of focus group discussions, we developed a questionnaire which was piloted among 189 clinical teachers. The final web-based questionnaire was completed by clinical teachers at nine German medical schools.ResultsA total of 833 clinical teachers (569 junior physicians, 264 assistant professors) participated in the online survey. According to participants, the most important indicator of high quality teaching was “sustained student learning outcome” followed by “stimulation of interest in the subject matter”. Lack of time was the main factor impeding effective teaching (78%). Among the factors facilitating high-quality teaching, protected preparation time during working hours (48%) and more recognition of high-quality teaching within medical schools (21%) were perceived as most helpful. Three out of four teachers (76%) were interested in faculty development programmes directed at teaching skills, but 60% stated they had no time to engage in such activities. With regard to evaluation, teachers preferred individual feedback (75%) over global ratings (21%). Differences between assistant professors and junior physicians were found in that the latter group perceived their teaching conditions as more difficult.ConclusionsLack of time is a major barrier against planning and delivering good clinical teaching in medical schools. According to our findings, the situation at German medical schools is particularly challenging for junior physicians. Creating an institutional culture in which teaching is regarded as highly as patient care and research is a prerequisite for overcoming the barriers identified in this study.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-017-1000-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The new questionnaire is short and yet based on a widely-used framework for clinical teaching. The analyses presented here indicate good reliability and validity of the instrument. Future research needs to investigate whether feedback generated from this tool helps to improve teaching quality and student learning outcome.

BackgroundThe seven categories of the Stanford Faculty Development Program (SFDP) represent a framework for planning and assessing medical teaching. Nevertheless, so far there is no specific evaluation tool for large-group lectures that is based on these categories. This paper reports the development and psychometric validation of a short German evaluation tool for large-group lectures in medical education (SETMED-L: ‘Student Evaluation of Teaching in MEDical Lectures’) based on the SFDP-categories.MethodsData were collected at two German medical schools. In Study 1, a full information factor analysis of the new 14-item questionnaire was performed. In Study 2, following cognitive debriefings and adjustments, a confirmatory factor analysis was performed. The model was tested for invariance across medical schools and student gender. Convergent validity was assessed by comparison with results of the FEVOR questionnaire.ResultsStudy 1 (n = 922) yielded a three-factor solution with one major (10 items) and two minor factors (2 items each). In Study 2 (n = 2740), this factor structure was confirmed. Scale reliability ranged between α = 0.71 and α = 0.88. Measurement invariance was given across student gender but not across medical schools. Convergent validity in the subsample tested (n = 246) yielded acceptable results.ConclusionThe SETMED-L showed satisfactory to very good psychometric characteristics. The main advantages are its short yet comprehensive form, the integration of SFDP-categories and its focus on medical education.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-017-0970-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Teachers appreciated the individual feedback provided by the evaluation tool and stated that they wanted to improve their teaching, based on the results; however, they missed most of the preparative communication. Students were unsure about the additional benefit of the instrument compared with traditional evaluation tools. A majority was unwilling to complete evaluation forms in their spare time, and some felt that the new questionnaire was too long and that the evaluations occurred too often. They were particularly interested in feedback on how their comments have helped to further improve teaching. Student evaluations of teaching can provide useful feedback CONCLUSION: Despite evidence of the utility of the tool for individual teachers, implementation of changes to the process of evaluation appears to have been suboptimal, mainly owing to a perceived lack of communication. In order to motivate students to provide evaluation data, feedback loops including aims and consequences should be established.

No abstract