CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 103Innovations in Medical EducationHealth and Medical EducationHospital Admissions and Outcomes

Medical Students' and Residents' preferred site characteristics and preceptor behaviours for learning in the ambulatory setting: a cross-sectional survey

Open access
Schultz, Karen W, Kirby, John, Delva, Dianne, Godwin, Marshall, Verma, Sarita, Birtwhistle, Richard, Knapper, Chris, Seguin, Rachelle·2004·BMC Medical Education
DOI 10.1186/1472-6920-4-12PMC PMC514563
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Medical training is increasingly occurring in the ambulatory setting for final year medical students and residents. This study looks to identify if gender, school, level of training, or speciality affects learner's (final year medical students and residents) preferred site characteristics and preceptor behaviours for learning in the ambulatory setting. Methods: All final year medical students and residents at the five medical schools in Ontario (N = 3471) were surveyed about the site characteristics and preceptor behaviours most enhancing their learning in the ambulatory setting. Preferred site characteristics and preceptor behaviours were rank ordered. Factor analysis grouped the site characteristics and preceptor behaviours into themes which were then correlated with gender, school, level of training, and speciality. Results: Having an adequate number and variety of patients while being supervised by enthusiastic preceptors who give feedback and are willing to discuss their reasoning processes and delegate responsibility are site characteristics and preceptor behaviours valued by almost all learners. Some teaching strategies recently suggested to improve efficiency in the ambulatory teaching setting, such as structuring the interview for the student and teaching and reviewing the case in front of the patient, were found not to be valued by learners. There was a striking degree of similarity in what was valued by all learners but there were also some educationally significant differences, particularly between learners at different levels and in different specialities. Key findings between the different levels include preceptor interaction being most important for medical students as opposed to residents who most value issues pertaining to patient logistics. Learning resources are less valued early and late in training. Teaching and having the case reviewed in front of the patient becomes increasingly less valued as learners advance in their training. As one approaches the end of ones' training office management instruction becomes increasingly valued. Differences between specialities pertain most to the type of practice residents will ultimately end up in (ie: office based specialties particularly valuing instruction in office management and health care system interaction). Conclusions: Preceptors need to be aware of, and make efforts to provide, teaching strategies such as feedback and discussing clinical reasoning, that learners have identified as being helpful for learning. If strategies identified as not being valued for learning, such as teaching in front of the patient, must continue it will be important to explore the barriers they present to learning. Although what all learners want from their preceptors and clinic settings to enhance their learning is remarkably similar, being aware of the educationally significant differences, particularly for learners at different levels and in different specialities, will enhance teaching in the ambulatory setting.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1472-6920-4-12

Cites

42 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Schultz, K. W., Kirby, J., Delva, D., Godwin, M., Verma, S., Birtwhistle, R., Knapper, C., & Seguin, R.
Affiliations
Queen's University (CA)
Corresponding author
Schultz, Karen W
ORCID
Venue
BMC Medical Education
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2004-08-06
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
12-12
ISSN
1472-6920 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1472-6920-4-12
PMC
PMC514563
OpenAlex
W1607610280
Cited by
103
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 10
FWCI
3.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Medical Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Canadian Celiac Association
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
Keywords
site conditions, medical students, residents (medical training), clinical supervision, feedback, clinical reasoning, specialty differences, training status, learner preferences
MeSH terms
Adult, Ambulatory Care Facilities, Attitude of Health Personnel, Behavior, Clinical Clerkship, Consumer Behavior, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Feedback, Female, Humans, Internship and Residency, Male, Ontario, Preceptorship, Schools, Medical, Students, Medical, Teaching, Program Evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review