Peter Iblher, Marzellus Hofmann, Michaela Zupanic, Georg Breuer
Abstract
Not least the much-invoked shortage of physicians in the current and the next generation has resulted in a wide range of efforts to improve postgraduate medical training. This is also in the focus of the current healthcare policy debate. Furthermore, quality and scope of available postgraduate training are important locational advantages in the competition for medical doctors. This study investigates the preferences and concerns that German house officers (HOs) have about their current postgraduate training. It also highlights how HOs evaluate the quality of their current postgraduate training and the learning environment.
HOs were asked to answer the question: "Which things are of capital importance to you personally in your medical training?", using a free text format. The survey was conducted web based (Lime survey) and all data was anonymized. Summarizing qualitative analyses were performed using the software tool MaxQDA.
A total of 255 HOs participated in this study (female: n = 129/50.6 %; male: n = 126/49.4 %; age: 32 + 6 years) associated with 17 different German hospitals and from four medical specialties. Ten categories were generated from a total of 366 free text answers: 1. methodology of learning (n = 66), 2. supervision (n = 66), 3. learning structure (n = 61), 4. teaching competence (n = 37), 5. dedication (n = 34), 6. work climate (n = 29), 7. feedback/communication (n = 22), 8. challenge/patient safety (n = 21), 9. time/resources (n = 17), 10. personal security/safety (n = 13).
HOs want a reliable and curriculum-guided learning structure. Different studying techniques should be used with sufficient (time) resources available in a trusting and communicative learning environment. Competent and dedicated instructors are expected to give individual and specific feedback to the HOs on individual strengths and deficits. Instructors should develop educational concepts in cooperation with the HOs and at the same time avoid excessive demands on HOs or hazards to patients.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 November 2015.
All research outputs
#3,727,567
of 26,372,509 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#654
of 4,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,256
of 291,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#9
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,372,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,163 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 291,773 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
