Article Text

PDF
Clinical teaching in paediatrics: understanding perceptions, motives and concerns
  1. R E Klaber1,
  2. I Pollock2
  1. 1
    Academic Centre for Medical Education, Division of Medical Education, UCL Medical School, London, UK
  2. 2
    Barnet+Chase Farm NHS Trust, UK
  1. Robert E Klaber, 51 Dalmeny Road, Tufnell Park, London N7 0DY, UK; bobklaber{at}doctors.org.uk

Abstract

Background: Children and young people are used as cases and standardised patients in clinical exams and teaching courses. Consultation with them suggests that education and training are areas they feel they should actively participate in.

Aims: To examine the perceptions, motives and concerns of children and young people participating in exam-focused clinical teaching, and to compare these views with those of their parents, trainees and tutors.

Methods: Consultation and a pilot study were used to design an anonymised questionnaire with 5-point Likert scales and free text answers. This was sent to 112 children and young people, their parents, and tutors and trainees attending a clinical teaching course. Results were analysed using the Mann–Whitney U test.

Results: 71% of the questionnaires sent to children and young people and their parents were completed. For children and young people the major reasons for taking part were the enjoyment of helping people to learn (92% agreement) and wanting to “give something back” (85% agreement). Parents put significantly more emphasis on giving something back than anything else. Tutors and trainees felt the chance for children and young people to earn pocket money was their most important motivation. The major problem highlighted was that it is tiring being repeatedly examined. All children and young people and their parents said that they would participate in future clinical teaching.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that in the context of well-planned, structured clinical teaching, most children and young people are primarily motivated to participate to help educate doctors.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: Both authors had a teaching and organisational role on each of the courses, for which they received a fee.

  • Funding: None.

  • Ethics approval: Ethics approval for the study was granted from the Institute of Child Health/Great Ormond Street Research Ethics Committee (REC).

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.