What learners and teachers value most in ambulatory educational encounters: A prospective, qualitative study

Patrick G. O'Malley, Kurt Kroenke, Joan Ritter, Norman Dy, Louis Pangaro

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose. To determine what learners and teachers value most in ambulatory learning encounters and whether the choices of the two groups are in concordance. Method. In 1996, the authors surveyed learners and teachers at a walk-in clinic immediately after each of 103 consecutive learning encounters. The participants answered two open-ended questions: (1) What was the one most valuable aspect of this learning encounter? and (2) List one thing that would make it better. Using qualitative analysis methods, two raters categorized the responses; their agreement was substantial (κ = .75). Results. Half the responses fit five categories: diagnosis (15%), general management (14%), physical examination skills (9%), patient selection (6%), and time issues (6%). The participants most valued general exposure to diagnosis (29%) and general management issues (29%). Regarding their suggestions for improving the encounters, 33% cited structural issues (often 'more time'), while 43% had no suggestions ('nothing' or 'fine as is'). Substantial concordance existed between the rankings by category of the teachers' and learners' comments, but (1) learners were more likely to rate the educational value of the encounter excellent or very good (64% vs 47%, p < .01); (2) teachers were more likely than medical students (but not interns) to place the most educational value on the physical examination (30% vs 4%, p = .001); and (3) agreement on what was most valuable in any individual encounter was poor (κ = .03). Conclusions. In evaluating ambulatory educational encounters, learners and teachers placed highest value on general exposure to diagnosis and disease management; while the most commonly recommended changes related to structural issues, particularly inadequate time. While learners and teachers agreed in general on the relative ranking of teaching activities, they often found different things to be educationally salient in a particular encounter.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)186-191
Number of pages6
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume74
Issue number2
StatePublished - Feb 1999

Fingerprint

Learning
Prospective Studies
Physical Examination
teacher
Values
Disease Management
Medical Students
Patient Selection
ranking
Teaching
management
learning
examination
medical student
Disease
time
Group

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Cite this

What learners and teachers value most in ambulatory educational encounters : A prospective, qualitative study. / O'Malley, Patrick G.; Kroenke, Kurt; Ritter, Joan; Dy, Norman; Pangaro, Louis.

In: Academic Medicine, Vol. 74, No. 2, 02.1999, p. 186-191.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

O'Malley, Patrick G. ; Kroenke, Kurt ; Ritter, Joan ; Dy, Norman ; Pangaro, Louis. / What learners and teachers value most in ambulatory educational encounters : A prospective, qualitative study. In: Academic Medicine. 1999 ; Vol. 74, No. 2. pp. 186-191.
@article{e79e6512fd9a4237b60aafbebf2143d5,
title = "What learners and teachers value most in ambulatory educational encounters: A prospective, qualitative study",
abstract = "Purpose. To determine what learners and teachers value most in ambulatory learning encounters and whether the choices of the two groups are in concordance. Method. In 1996, the authors surveyed learners and teachers at a walk-in clinic immediately after each of 103 consecutive learning encounters. The participants answered two open-ended questions: (1) What was the one most valuable aspect of this learning encounter? and (2) List one thing that would make it better. Using qualitative analysis methods, two raters categorized the responses; their agreement was substantial (κ = .75). Results. Half the responses fit five categories: diagnosis (15{\%}), general management (14{\%}), physical examination skills (9{\%}), patient selection (6{\%}), and time issues (6{\%}). The participants most valued general exposure to diagnosis (29{\%}) and general management issues (29{\%}). Regarding their suggestions for improving the encounters, 33{\%} cited structural issues (often 'more time'), while 43{\%} had no suggestions ('nothing' or 'fine as is'). Substantial concordance existed between the rankings by category of the teachers' and learners' comments, but (1) learners were more likely to rate the educational value of the encounter excellent or very good (64{\%} vs 47{\%}, p < .01); (2) teachers were more likely than medical students (but not interns) to place the most educational value on the physical examination (30{\%} vs 4{\%}, p = .001); and (3) agreement on what was most valuable in any individual encounter was poor (κ = .03). Conclusions. In evaluating ambulatory educational encounters, learners and teachers placed highest value on general exposure to diagnosis and disease management; while the most commonly recommended changes related to structural issues, particularly inadequate time. While learners and teachers agreed in general on the relative ranking of teaching activities, they often found different things to be educationally salient in a particular encounter.",
author = "O'Malley, {Patrick G.} and Kurt Kroenke and Joan Ritter and Norman Dy and Louis Pangaro",
year = "1999",
month = "2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "74",
pages = "186--191",
journal = "Academic Medicine",
issn = "1040-2446",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - What learners and teachers value most in ambulatory educational encounters

T2 - A prospective, qualitative study

AU - O'Malley, Patrick G.

AU - Kroenke, Kurt

AU - Ritter, Joan

AU - Dy, Norman

AU - Pangaro, Louis

PY - 1999/2

Y1 - 1999/2

N2 - Purpose. To determine what learners and teachers value most in ambulatory learning encounters and whether the choices of the two groups are in concordance. Method. In 1996, the authors surveyed learners and teachers at a walk-in clinic immediately after each of 103 consecutive learning encounters. The participants answered two open-ended questions: (1) What was the one most valuable aspect of this learning encounter? and (2) List one thing that would make it better. Using qualitative analysis methods, two raters categorized the responses; their agreement was substantial (κ = .75). Results. Half the responses fit five categories: diagnosis (15%), general management (14%), physical examination skills (9%), patient selection (6%), and time issues (6%). The participants most valued general exposure to diagnosis (29%) and general management issues (29%). Regarding their suggestions for improving the encounters, 33% cited structural issues (often 'more time'), while 43% had no suggestions ('nothing' or 'fine as is'). Substantial concordance existed between the rankings by category of the teachers' and learners' comments, but (1) learners were more likely to rate the educational value of the encounter excellent or very good (64% vs 47%, p < .01); (2) teachers were more likely than medical students (but not interns) to place the most educational value on the physical examination (30% vs 4%, p = .001); and (3) agreement on what was most valuable in any individual encounter was poor (κ = .03). Conclusions. In evaluating ambulatory educational encounters, learners and teachers placed highest value on general exposure to diagnosis and disease management; while the most commonly recommended changes related to structural issues, particularly inadequate time. While learners and teachers agreed in general on the relative ranking of teaching activities, they often found different things to be educationally salient in a particular encounter.

AB - Purpose. To determine what learners and teachers value most in ambulatory learning encounters and whether the choices of the two groups are in concordance. Method. In 1996, the authors surveyed learners and teachers at a walk-in clinic immediately after each of 103 consecutive learning encounters. The participants answered two open-ended questions: (1) What was the one most valuable aspect of this learning encounter? and (2) List one thing that would make it better. Using qualitative analysis methods, two raters categorized the responses; their agreement was substantial (κ = .75). Results. Half the responses fit five categories: diagnosis (15%), general management (14%), physical examination skills (9%), patient selection (6%), and time issues (6%). The participants most valued general exposure to diagnosis (29%) and general management issues (29%). Regarding their suggestions for improving the encounters, 33% cited structural issues (often 'more time'), while 43% had no suggestions ('nothing' or 'fine as is'). Substantial concordance existed between the rankings by category of the teachers' and learners' comments, but (1) learners were more likely to rate the educational value of the encounter excellent or very good (64% vs 47%, p < .01); (2) teachers were more likely than medical students (but not interns) to place the most educational value on the physical examination (30% vs 4%, p = .001); and (3) agreement on what was most valuable in any individual encounter was poor (κ = .03). Conclusions. In evaluating ambulatory educational encounters, learners and teachers placed highest value on general exposure to diagnosis and disease management; while the most commonly recommended changes related to structural issues, particularly inadequate time. While learners and teachers agreed in general on the relative ranking of teaching activities, they often found different things to be educationally salient in a particular encounter.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033029119&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033029119&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10065059

AN - SCOPUS:0033029119

VL - 74

SP - 186

EP - 191

JO - Academic Medicine

JF - Academic Medicine

SN - 1040-2446

IS - 2

ER -