MEDICAL SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
UCL MEDICAL SCHOOL
Quality Assurance Unit
Summary of Student Evaluation
Questionnaire Data
2012-13
1
1. Mechanisms of obtaining student evaluation on the MBBS course from the Faculties of Medical
Sciences
1.1 Scope:
This is a summary of the on-line student evaluation questionnaires (SEQ) which is one method employed by
UCL Medical School for gaining data about the student experience.
The Faculty of Medical Sciences (FMS) is a large faculty whose undergraduate educational enterprise is
concentrated on the MBBS programme, which is delivered in conjunction with the other faculties in the
School of Life and Medical Sciences (SLMS). By its nature, the MBBS programme differs from other UCL
undergraduate courses. This is not just due to its length (standard 6 years) and the number of clinical
placements but to the number of individuals involved in delivering teaching, regulation by external
professional bodies including the GMC, competency-based assessment rather than the conventional degree
classification system and the entry of over 50 transfer students from Oxbridge into the clinical course.
1.2 Accessing the Student Experience
In order to give our students the opportunity to provide feedback on their learning experience, we employ a
range of strategies which are complementary and fit for purpose given the complexity of the programme.
However, the sheer size of the faculty and the complexity of the clinical course, means that the on-line
SEQs are a very important source of data by which we quality assure the programme. Over the years SEQs
have been modified and all SEQs now contains a set of core questions and a global score. These common
items enable us to produce data which compares courses and sites helping us share best practice and
support development.
This year we are having a major review of our quality assurance processes and this includes a focus on
revising our SEQs.
2
Section
Page
Introduction
4
1
Year 1
5
2
Year 2
6
3
Year 4
7
4
Year 5
8
5
Year 6
10
6
General Practice (Years 4-6)
11
7
Vertical Modules
11
8
Medical Education Providers
14
9
Central Sites
14
10
DGH Attachments (Years 5 and 6)
15
11
Appendix 1
18
3
INTRODUCTION: HOW SEQ DATA IS GATHERED & USED
All modules and all NHS sites (including each of the 200+ GP practices) are evaluated via the online SEQ system using the Opinio6 software. In 2012-13 we received over 15,000 individual
responses of combined numerical data and free text, however for the purpose of this report 5,800
individual responses were considered for the various modules being reported on. Response rate
(RR) varies between 12- 77%.
Modules and Sites: this is the fourth year that the Quality Assurance Unit (QAU) took over the
monitoring of Years 1 & 2 and now all data (except GP, MBPhD, Year 4 Pathological Sciences
and Vertical Module data) is collected by the QAU. Data is collected about each module and, for
Years 4, 5 and 6, for each of the main NHS sites. Clinical attachments data is available down to
firm level and can be analysed in greater detail using the drill-down function. All numeric data is
posted on the QAU website.
Uses:
 Review of modules: by Site Sub Deans, MMGs, and student reps
 Review by Undergraduate Teaching Committees: to evaluate the ‘health’ and delivery
of modules. All elected student reps have full access to aid them in their role.
 Annual monitoring Most MMGs refer to SEQ data in reviewing modules and in writing
annual reports, e.g. the Annual Monitoring Report for College and the Annual SIFT Report
for the Strategic Health Authority. Summary reports are also produced and reviewed
during periodic
 Planning QAU/Sift visits: SEQ data has been traditionally used in planning and
preparation of NHS QA/SIFT site visits.
Challenges
 Response rates & student fatigue: the response rate needs to be sustained because
without academics tend to disregard student evaluations as not being representative of
the cohort – long SEQs clearly produce fatigue and drop-out.
Low response rates are increasing. This was prevalent in Year 5, 2 and 6, where RR fell
to below 40%. In one module, student evaluations were posted three days before the end
of the rotation. This was in response to a request by C&I Foundation Trust. However, very
little improvement was seen.
The QAU needs to do more to feedback to students on SEQ data and this is an important
aspect of the review. However we now publish the School’s responses to issues raised by
students as a way of ‘closing the loop’, the QAU has launching the Quality Matters: “You
said. We listened” online discussion forum.
 Quality enhancement by MMGs: there is evidence that despite some consistent issues
raised by students, MMGs are sometimes unable to take remedial action to enhance
quality.
High data volume: Ideally, prompt, high quality summaries should help focus action
necessary to address problems. It is becoming increasingly important that we publish
reports for Trusts and these include comparable data. At present these reports are time
consuming to produce and the QAU will investigate how to produce these more
effectively.
 Critical or exceptional incidents (including raising patient safety issues): We have
introduced a spontaneous mechanism for student feedback. Our Raising Concerns’
website has been developed including a confidential on-line reporting system to report
incidents. We have also a texting system to report “no-shows” of teachers.
4
1.
YEAR 1
The overall scores for most of the Year 1 modules were positive. Comments suggest that the
course is stretching the students appropriately and that the modules are seen as providing a
good foundation in medicine. Students praised the variety of teaching methods used and valued
Moodle applications. Building work at the Cruciform library has had an impact on learning.
Students appreciated the support provided by UCLMS in providing extra computer rooms so that
they were able to complete on-line assessments.
Foundations of Health and Medical Practice (RR 77%, Overall Rating 41% n=217)
Module provided a good introduction to medicine. Online Moodle quizzes were well received and
considered as a useful learning tool.
Histology practical and anatomy lab sessions were “excellent”. The use of external speakers was
highly valued; sessions on Social Epidemiology were highly praised by students.
In need of improvement… as was the case last year, students found the delivery of the module
disjointed in nature and time spent on various topics often ‘unbalanced’. Students found the
Module aims and objectives unclear. Students requested course material (lecture notes/slides) in
advance. Students commented on large gaps in the in the daily scheduling of lectures. Students
requested more engagement during lectures and requested more use of TurningPoint (electronic
personal response device). More assessment feedback was requested, as 65% of students
reported that they did not receive any feedback.
Infection and Defence Module (RR 46%, Overall Rating 93% n=141)
Overall cohesiveness and organisation of this module was highly praised. Students valued the
wide variety of learning resources, especially the lunchtime live chat questions.
As with the previous year, students praised the weekly formative assessments.
In need of improvement… more CALs and SPLs requested to consolidate learning. More
assessment feedback was requested, as 60% of students reported that they did not receive any
feedback.
Circulation and Breathing Module (RR 30%, Overall Rating 71%, n=93)
Mostly positive feedback. Again, practical sessions (including dissections), labs and tutorials
were exceptionally well-received. Students praised the range of teaching methods, including
CALs and Self Directed Learning SPLs were particularly useful in consolidating learning.
In need of improvement… 47% of students reported that they did not receive any feedback.
Students requested more detailed course material. More formative quizzes and end of module
Moodle quizzes was also welcomed.
Fluids, Nutrition and Metabolism Module (RR 21%, Overall Rating 72%, n=62)
Overall the layout and cohesiveness of the module was well-received. Students praised
physiology and metabolism teaching. However, many felt that embryology sessions were
challenging. There was a good range of CALs and PBLs to support learning. Tutorials and
problem classes were useful.
In need of improvement… more biochemistry tutorials and revision sessions would be welcomed.
Consider including more in-course assessment and Moodle quizzes.
5
2.
Year 2
Generally in Year 2 most activities well were received. The feedback indicates that the course is
challenging and interesting. SPLs and CALs were highly praised. Both Year 1 and 2 students
praised the use of TurningPoint during lectures as a means of improve interaction and
engagement during lectures.
Movement and Musculoskeletal Biology Module (RR 52%, Overall Rating 72% n=150)
Module rated highly. Feedback on anatomy and histology teaching particularly positive.
Again, feedback indicates that the workload in anatomy was challenging but interesting. Students
requested that the scheduling of anatomy labs be more dispersed and not bunched.
In need of improvement… to consider uploading lectures on Lecturecast. Also, to provide
advance notice of assessments and to extend the time set to complete online assessments.
Neuroscience and Behaviour Module (RR 34%, Overall Rating 90% n=106)
Students again found the module extremely interesting though challenging. A good balance
between basic science and clinical applications was reported. Teaching and course materials
were “excellent”.
In need of improvement… some neuroanatomy teaching was rushed. 62% of students reported
that they did not receive any feedback. Students requested that Moodle formative assessments
need to remain open longer.
Endocrine Systems and Regulation Module (RR 38%, Overall Rating 90% n=104)
Module received high praise from the students. SPLs, PBLs and CALs sessions were particularly
well received.
In need of improvement… consider moving CALs and SPL session to the end of the lectures and
not before. Students commented that the Moodle pages were confusing and difficult to navigate
through. Consider placing course materials and slides together.
Reproduction, Development and Genetics Module (RR 29%, Overall Rating 68% n=91)
Overall mostly positive. Lectures were comprehensive and engaging. Certain lectures and the
live ethics debates were “exceptional” and “engaging”.
In need of improvement… improve module delivery - module perceived as often “disjointed” and
less well organized. Not enough focus on foetal and neonatal physiology.
Cancer Biology (1-week module) (RR 24%, Overall Rating 60% n=71)
Students commented positively on the clinical relevance, focus on current emerging therapeutic
strategies and up-to-date research.
In need of improvement… consider introducing formative assessments and extending the session
to 2 weeks. Students requested clearer learning objectives and more co-ordination between
lectures to avoid repetition.
6
3.
Year 4
Overall teaching across modules very well received. Teaching cancellations and timetabling
issues remain problematic across the main sites.
Module C remains the module that performs the least well at all campuses. Reports of
overcrowding during Neurology teaching at Royal Free. Timetable clashes and teaching
cancellations also reported.
Introduction and Orientation Module (RR 51%, Overall Rating 84% n=167)
Generally good feedback. PALs/Clinical Skills sessions were highly praised. The Final mock
OSCEs was valued.
In need of improvement ... need for smaller group teaching and improved organisation of ward
round teaching (more time needed to for taking histories and examinations). Students
commented that ophthalmology teaching was “rushed” and “intense”. Students requested details
of timetables and course structure in advance of the module.
Module A (RR 41%, Overall Rating 80% n=141)
Very positive feedback. Organisation and scheduling highly praised, particularly at the Royal
Free. Timetabled teaching, bedside and ward round teaching by registrars and foundation year
doctors highly praised.
MAU/AAU teaching good across all sites. MAU and vascular surgery “excellent” at the Royal
Free. Cohesive overlap between Respiratory, Cardiology and MAU teaching.
Students commented that Liaison Psychiatry was slightly disjointed with the rest of the module
specialties.
In need of improvement ... need to improve scheduling of GP placements as students reported
clashes with scheduled teaching. Respiratory teaching cancellations reported at UCLH
Module B (RR 38%, Overall Rating 63% n=129)
Generally well organised with good exposure to each of the specialties. Orthopaedics and
rheumatology were highly praised. Students commented that teaching was “interactive” and
“informative”. Students also reported that clinical skills sessions were “excellent”.
Royal Free students reported that surgery teaching was well integrated and that there were
plenty of opportunities in theatre.
In need of improvement… clashes between VM peel-off activities/GP placements and scheduled
teaching was reported. To consider more formal, scheduled pharmacology and therapeutics
teaching. Detailed assessment criteria and more online formative assessments/mock OSCEs
were requested, as students commented that more focussed guidance on learning objectives is
needed. Anaesthetics tutorials were requested by students at Royal Free.
Module C (RR 41%, Overall Rating 34% n=140)
Students were challenged in Module C, many commented that there was “too much content” to
cover. However, opportunities to see a wide variety of clinical specialties were valued.
7
Teaching of infectious diseases and haematology was praised at UCLH and Whittington. At
Royal Free, neurology and renal teaching by Consultants and SpRs was “excellent”.
In need of improvement… organisation at sites was variable. More flexibility to attend clinics and
ward/bedside teaching requested (Royal Free and UCLH), with students requesting better
support to benefit from seeing different specialties in such a short period. Students reported
clashes with scheduled seminars/teaching with GP placements/VM teaching. Very little exposure
to renal teaching at Whittington campus. Students reported little or no renal teaching outside the
core teaching week. Many students reported that there were very few clerking opportunities as
there were very few patients.
4.
Year 5
Overall all three modules are very well received. DGHs are welcoming and students were made
to feel part of a team. Students praised the enthusiastic teachers, helpful inductions and excellent
teaching.
Child and Family Health with Dermatology (RR 32%, Overall Rating 75% n=222)
Paediatrics (Overall Rating 74%)
Students appreciated the large amounts of good quality teaching, especially bedside teaching
and a good variety of specialties within the timetable. Students valued clinical exposure and
clerking opportunities. A&E paediatrics teaching was reported as “excellent”.
“Acute Week” at UCLH was highly praised.
Dermatology (Overall Rating 84%)
Dermatology feedback was very positive. Teachers were enthusiastic and there was plenty of
clinical exposure. “Excellent” teaching provided at the Whittington.
In need of improvement ....more clinics, bedside/ward based teaching and scheduled teaching.
Some reports of teaching cancellations at UCLH and overcrowding in Dermatology clinics at
Royal Free.
Women’s Health and Communicable Disease (RR 32%, Overall Rating 69% n=218)
Women’s Health - Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Generally good feedback on the enthusiasm of doctors and midwifes. Students appreciated the
opportunities to attend a variety of clinics and to get involved with patients and clinical
procedures. Excellent consultant teaching, tutorials and clinical skills teaching.
At Royal Free, students commended time spent in the Simulation Centre. Plenty of opportunities
to experience live births.
In need of improvement.... clashes between scheduled tutorials and clinics reported.
Greater access/flexibility to attend a variety of clinics.
8
Communicable Diseases/GUM/HIV
Very positive feedback on the organisation of the module with plenty of opportunities to see
patients in clinic and to take patient histories. Lectures were interesting and engaging, with
excellent team learning. Quizzes and case study sessions were highly commended.
Nurse-led clinical teaching at the Mortimer Market Centre and HIV ward teaching at the Royal
Free was “excellent”.
In need of improvement.... more clinical/ward-based teaching (infectious and tropical diseases).
Students commented on the amount of paperwork (signing in at the beginning of a clinical
session and procedure card sign off). For ward-based HIV testing, students reported that there
were very few patients (UCLH).
Clinical Neurosciences (RR 30%, Overall Rating 74% n=323)
General Psychiatry and Specialist Psychiatry (Overall Rating 83% and 79%)
Student feedback very positive. Students praised the quality of teaching, particularly community
based teaching. The balance between community based/GP attachments teaching and ward
based teaching was valued. Students very positive about opportunities to clerk a comprehensive
mix of patients.
General Community Psychiatry teaching at Highgate Mental Health Centre (HMHC) was
excellent. Teachers were helpful, welcoming, encouraging and focussed.
Specialist Psychiatry teaching at the Priory Clinic and the Cardinal Clinic was “brilliant”. Students
praised the consultant led teaching, and valued the exposure to patients with different psychiatric
conditions.
In need of improvement.... students valued ward-based teaching and the opportunities to take
histories from patients with a variety of conditions, however many agreed that the delivery of
teaching could usefully be more structured and focussed. More structured timetables and
advanced circulation of timetables was requested.
Neurology (Overall Rating 86%)
For 2012-13, all Year 5 Neurology teaching was moved to the Institute of Neurology & the
National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery.
Teaching and organisation was highly praised. Staff were friendly and approachable and
teaching from consultant and registrars teaching were highly commended. Dr Mark Parton was
“excellent”.
In need of improvement.... students reported overcrowding on ward rounds. Students requested
more seminar sessions on neurophysiology/pathology and critical care.
Ophthalmology
Formal and clinical teaching rated highly. Teaching at Moorfields was “excellent”. Students
valued opportunities to be actively involved in patient assessment.
In need of improvement.... as with the previous year, students reported repetition in teaching.
Some commented that there was overcrowding in clinics.
9
5.
Year 6
Final Year attachments (RR 36%, Overall Rating 80% n=128. Overall Rating for Medicine
(74%), Surgery (65%) and A&E (71%)
2012-13 survey saw the inclusion of mandatory GMC questions, increasing the length of the SEQ
from 49 questions (2011-12 End of Placement SEQ) to 70 questions.
Feedback was very positive and 65% students believed that they were well prepared to take up
their first foundation post.
DGHs are welcoming and students were made to feel part of a team. Shadowing a foundation
doctor and having opportunities to practice clinical skills was invaluable. Consultant teaching at
DGHs was highly praised and there were requests for more scheduled teaching, particularly for
surgery and ward rounds. There was good supervision throughout the placement. Mock OSCEs
were praised. However, short station mock OSCEs were requested at North Middlesex.
Practical prescribing teaching by pharmacists was highly praised. Although, students were less
confident with administering drugs. Many believed that teaching by nurses during the drugs round
would be very useful. Prescribing at Lister was exceptional.
Students found it difficult to complete the required number of procedures and so getting their
procedure cards signed off was challenging, particularly in relation to suturing, male
catheterisation and death certificates.
Assistantships were generally well-received although there was some variability in the student
experience. Students allocated to North Middlesex Hospital reported that the assistantship
required improved organisation and needed to be more formally recognised by the teaching
team.
IT and library provision: issues across most sites reported. Out-of-hours access to library and IT
facilities (including internet access in accommodation) continues to be problematic.
10
6.
General Practice – Years 4, 5 and 6
Generally high level of student satisfaction for GP based teaching. Occasional concerns have
arisen with particular placements which tend to relate to individual tutor or practice queries rather
than problems with programme aims or content. Such issues are taken up directly with practices
and can usually be resolved following discussion and explanation.
For Core GP and Final Year GP Assistantship programmes, students reported positively on
patient exposure. Opportunities to see patients on their own and presenting cases to tutors’ for
discussion were highly valued.
Some campus-based seminar teaching was less well regarded. Therefore, for 2013-14, Year 5
Core GP seminar programmes have been reduced to one session.
Within specialties in GP teaching all areas have received positive feedback. These specialties
include:
 Patient Pathway and Integrated Community Care
 Medicine in the Community
 Neurology
 Child Health
 Dermatology
 Mental Health
 Women’s Health
 SSCs (student selected components) in General Practice
Positive feedback for the one-off primary care neurology programme (run as a transitional
arrangement during the phasing in of new curriculum years four and five) was very encouraging.
It has been recommended that GP tutors teaching Care of the Older Person should include a
focus on neurological knowledge and skills within this teaching.
7.
Vertical Modules
The response rate for module evaluations is very low. However, feedback is generally positive
across different modules.
Anatomy and Imaging (RR 12% Overall Rating 81% n=42)
Positive feedback received. Students praised the innovative teaching methods.
Overcrowding during lectures was reported. Students requested more time to discuss case
histories with their tutors.
Clinical Skills and Practical Procedures (RR 27% Overall Rating 78% n=252)
Students’ comments were very positive. Teaching by senior medical students and clinical skills
staff was highly praised. PALs was “very good” and “very organised”.
Some revision sessions were requested. Students requested more opportunities to practice
clinical skills, and requested a simpler method for accessing the clinical skill room.
Mental Health (RR 24% Overall Rating 53% n=321)
Students appreciated the early introduction to mental health into the curriculum. Small group work
sessions, debates and working with patients activities was highly valued.
More structured supporting documentation was requested.
11
Patient Pathway Year 1&2 Integrated & Community Care (RR 22% Mean Overall Rating 73%
n=143)
Students were positive about the opportunity to practise taking histories and applying
communication skills in a clinical setting. However, more focussed teaching was needed.
Students requested that placements should be located closer to the university to avoid lengthy
journeys and rising travel costs.
Social Determinants of Health (RR 19% Overall Rating 29% n=454)
Students enjoyed the group sessions and valued the patient contact. Lectures were
“inspirational” and “superb”.
Students requested more focussed and engaging teaching, with clearer learning outcomes. Many
commented that the Moodle pages were difficult to navigate.
Use of Evidence (RR 21% Overall Rating 43% n=246)
Student feedback was generally positive. The sessions were clinically relevant, focussed and
interactive. Students commented that the CALs were “really useful”.
It was reported that the Moodle pages were confusing and difficult to navigate.
Use of Medicine (RR 19% Overall Rating 29% n=60)
Students praised the quality of teaching, which was clinically relevant and well integrated into the
curriculum. Course materials were useful and comprehensive.
Students requested more focussed learning objectives, as many reported variability in teaching
during tutorials. Clearer guidelines on what was relevant to learn for the exams were requested.
Cardiometabolic Patient Pathway (RR 13% Overall Rating 77% n=100)
Students valued patient contact and the opportunity to take histories and practise communication
skills.
Cancer Medicine Patient Pathway (RR 21% Overall Rating 61% n=69)
Module rated a positive learning experience overall, with positive comments about excellent small
group tutorials and useful case studies. The patient journey was reported as a valuable
experience.
In need of improvement... students believed that the module was too “abstract” and not cohesive
with the Year 4 curriculum. A request for improved co-ordination of Lecturecasts with lecture
slides was requested. More support in recruiting patients is needed. Many students struggled to
find patients to shadow.
Year 4 Pathological Sciences
During 2012-13, changes to the new Year 4 curriculum resulted in the integration of the
Pathological Sciences Week into the Core Teaching Weeks of each of the new Year 4 modules
(Module A, B and C).
Organisational changes to the delivery of Pathological Sciences teaching also resulted in
changes to the way student feedback for was collated; from block 2, the SEQs were administered
by the Pathological Sciences Administrator (instead of the QAU).
Overall module satisfaction remains positive (Mean overall satisfaction for Module A, B and C is
76%, 47% and 74% respectively). However, RR remain low (ranging from 10-18%).
12
Students praised the introduction of the Path’ Workbook and valued the on-line teaching
materials on Moodle. However, some students commented that due to the large file sizes,
printing out workbooks/lecture notes/slides was time consuming and costly. White background
lecture slides were requested (Module C).
Teaching was thorough, focussed and linked well to clinical aspects of the up-coming module
teaching. However, some students agreed that the comprehensive teaching week teaching was
challenging and often overwhelming.
In need of improvement ....to consider re-wording questions in the Path’ Workbook (Module A).
Students reported that questions were sometimes confusing and ambiguous and that it would be
useful to have access to the answers. The quality of some Lecturecast recordings was poor
(Module B).
Student Selected Components (SSCs)
It is clear from the evaluations that students value the opportunity to study SSCs. They provide
an opportunity to consolidate learning, provide plenty of clinical exposure and learn new skills.
Reporting on individual SSCs is limited as there are a large range of options, with only a small
number of students doing each topic.
Year 1 SSCs (RR 40%, Overall Rating 80% n=214)
Very positive feedback received. Students praised the variety of teaching methods employed,
these included, self-directed learning, group work, debates and tutor contact. The use of
specialist visiting lecturers was particularly commended. Students valued the on-line teaching
materials available to them.
Improvements ... students requested clarification on assessment criteria. Many commented that
there was not much time to prepare for assessments. Language SSCs were very challenging and
students reported that the course workload and content was heavy.
Year 2 SSCs (RR 50%, Overall Rating 87% n=140)
Feedback was very positive. Again, students valued the specialist visiting lecturers.
Year 6 SSCs (RR 44%, Overall Rating 89% n=303)
Excellent feedback received. Students commended the support and guidance from ACME and
the clinical skills staff. The TiPs course was “really useful”.
Improvements ... more structured teaching requested.
13
8.
Medical Education Providers
This section is collated from online student evaluation questionnaires, providing a mixture of numeric
and written feedback. The numeric feedback has been colour coded green, amber and red. The table
below shows an example of how the system is used:
Positive overall feedback for each specialty in each site is colour coded:
60 – 100% =
Positive
40 – 59% =
Neither positive
nor negative
0 - 39% =
Negative
The system is designed as a rough guide and its statistical relevance will vary depending on the
number of students who have provided feedback. It also varies depending on the individual questions.
In general the answers are on a five point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), and the
percentage given is calculated from the sum of the positive responses (taken as either 4 or 5).
9. Central Sites
Royal Free
Module A
77%
Year 4
Module B
63%
Year 5
Module C
24%
CHFD
41%
WHCD
62%
Year 4 student feedback is generally good. Students valued exposure to different specialities.
Students praised GI, Hepatology, Orthopaedics, Infectious Diseases and Renal teaching, and were
reported as “excellent”. Vascular Surgery and related specialties also received very positive feedback.
Some patchy feedback relating to poor organisation for Module C teaching. Students commented on
teaching cancellations (Haematology) and timetable clashes (between placements and lectures).
Many students reported that there was not enough time to cover all the specialties.
Overcrowding in lectures and clinics reported for Neurology teaching. High student numbers are the
result of all Year 4 Neuro teaching being based at the Royal Free. For 2013-14, a significant
improvement is expected, with teaching occurring both at Royal Free and the Institute of Neurology &
the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery (NHNN).
More scheduled teaching and clinics were requested for CFHD. Students reported that timetables
were confusing and that clinics were often overcrowded.
Comments about widespread teaching cancellations for WHCD. Many students reported timetable
clashes between clinical placements and tutorials.
For 2012-13, Neurology teaching (Year 5) was moved to NHNN.
UCLH
Module A
88%
Module B
66%
Module C
38%
CHFD
75%
WHCD
60%
Positive feedback in many areas especially renal teaching and haematology. Students praised
consultant teaching. Infectious diseases teaching was “exceptional” (Module C, Year 4).
CFHD feedback for UCLH was very positive. Students praised the high standards of clinical teaching,
14
1-to-1 teaching and seminars. Students valued opportunities for clinical involvement.
For WHCD, organisation and scheduling was highly praised. Students valued the consultant and
registrar-led teaching.
In need of improvement.....improve scheduling of tutorials. Cancellations and clashes were reported
between tutorials and clinics for WHCD.
Whittington
Module A
71%
Module B
60%
Module C
38%
CHFD
89%
WHCD
67%
Feedback positive in most areas. Standards of clinical teaching praised. Gastroenterology and
Rheumatology teaching by consultants/registrars/SpRs praised by students.
In need of improvement..... students requested improved organisation of Orthopaedic sessions as
timetable clashes between formal lessons and clinics were reported. Comments indicate little or no
Renal teaching outside the core teaching week (Module C). Many students reported that there were
very few clerking opportunities as there were very few patients.
Some out-of-date timetables and teaching cancellations reported (WHCD).
10. DGH Attachments (Years 5 and 6)
Generally excellent overall feedback from all sites. Teaching by consultants, registrars, junior doctors
and clinicians was highly valued.
In need of improvement... IT, library and internet access in the student accommodation is an
increasing problem for students at a number of sites. Accommodation facilities remain poor at some
sites.
Barnet
Paediatrics
100%
O&G
47%
Medicine
46%
Surgery
54%
A&E
61%
Student feedback was generally positive. Staff were supportive and friendly especially foundation
doctors who were enthusiastic and eager to teach -“great role models”. Students rated consultant-led
bedside teaching as excellent across all modules, although more structured teaching was requested.
85% of final year students felt well prepared to take up the first foundation post.
Administrative support was rated very highly. Students praised the organisation and timetabling.
Commuting from the Chase Farm-based accommodation to Barnet Hospital continues to be
problematic, with out-of-date shuttle-bus timetables, overcrowding and infrequent (hourly) buses.
Basildon
Paediatrics
59%
O&G
73%
Medicine
89%
Surgery
77%
A&E
88%
Student feedback is generally good, notably WHCD, Medicine, Surgery and A&E. For WHCD
teaching, students praised the learning environment at Basildon, and valued the opportunity to
15
experience with different psychiatric conditions.
Final year students reported that foundation doctor teaching was “superb”. Teaching was well
structured. Out-of-hours teaching was highly valued – providing greater clerking and learning
opportunities. Bedside teaching and opportunities to experience other specialities such Renal
teaching were welcomed.
Teaching cancellations were reported for Paediatrics and O&G. Students reported that timetables
were confusing, out-of-date and often clashed with clinics.
Negative feedback about the poor standard of accommodation was repeated. However, it was
reported that plans to refurbish accommodation are underway.
Chase Farm
Paediatrics
82%
O&G
80%
Medicine
67%
Surgery
67%
A&E
66%
The student feedback is mostly positive. Plenty of exposure to patients for Year 5 teaching. However,
there were some reports that Midwives prioritised teaching for midwifery students over medical
students.
Teaching delivered by foundation doctors (Year 6) was “excellent”.
Colchester
O&G
75%
King George
Paediatrics
75%
O&G
100%
“Brilliant” education experience. Consultant-led teaching and teaching by junior doctors was reported
as “exceptional”. Paediatrics site lead teaching was “excellent”.
Some reports of overcrowding for paediatrics teaching, with clinics being shared with students from
QMUL.
There is no Final Year teaching on this site.
Lister
Paediatrics
73%
O&G
87%
Medicine
63%
Surgery
75%
A&E
87%
Student feedback is generally good. F1/F2 and consultant-led teaching highly praised.
Students praised the high level of clinical exposure in CFHD and O&G. However, some negative
comments about the behaviour of Midwives were received. Students were frustrated by the fact that
the teaching of midwifery students was prioritised over medical students despite the fact that teaching
of UCL medical students was formally timetabled.
For Year 6, teaching by Clinical Pharmacologists and Pharmacists rated “excellent”.
Communication from the education centre needs improvement. Students expressed frustration
because of the late confirmation of accommodation placements, and the last minute notifications of
16
teaching sessions.
Accommodation, library and IT facilities rated poorly. Criticisms included limited out-of-hours access to
the library and IT facilities, and no internet access in the accommodation.
Luton and Dunstable
Paediatrics
91%
O&G
75%
Medicine
89%
Surgery
70%
A&E
93%
Students rate this attachment as excellent. Plenty of teaching by consultants, registrars, junior doctors
and clinicians was highly valued. Many appreciated the 1-to-1 teaching and flexibility to attend a
variety of clinics. Some A&E teaching (final year) was “exceptional”.
Accommodation and IT/library facilities excellent.
In need of improvement..... a large volume of tutorial cancellations were reported (WHCD).
North Middlesex
Paediatrics
87%
O&G
87%
Medicine
52%
Surgery
48%
A&E
62%
Excellent student feedback. For final year attachments, students praised Radiology teaching and
teaching by junior doctors.
For O&G and Paediatrics, very high quality consultant led teaching. 1-to-1 consultant-led teaching was
“invaluable”. Reports of overcrowding during the latter part of the attachment, as clinics were shared
with medical students from St George’s.
New accommodation was highly praised.
In need of improvement..... Update clinical/tutorial timetables (O&G). For final year attachment,
improve structure for consultant/registrar led teaching (including bedside teaching). Students
requested better communication from the Education Centre regarding teaching cancellations (A&E).
Wifi was requested in accommodation block.
Watford
Paediatrics
83%
O&G
64%
Medicine
85%
Surgery
60%
A&E
85%
Feedback was positive. Students commented that staff were friendly, welcoming and keen to teach.
There was good clinical exposure to the different specialties.
Final Year student feedback was very positive. Teaching at all levels was praised. Mock OSCEs and
ward-based teaching was commended. Students valued the support provided by the Medical
Education Centre.
In need of improvement..... consider extending “labour days” to full days rather than half day sessions,
in-order for students to observe full labours (O&G). More bedside teaching/tutorials requested. Final
year students requested advance notice of bedside/structured teaching.
Reports of poor heating, asbestos concerns and cockroaches in the accommodation.
17
Appendix 1
This data is generated from a question in all SEQs regarding each student’s overall satisfaction with the
placement/module.
Hospital
Placement
Year
UCL
C&B
1
UCL
FNM
1
UCL
I&D
1
n/a
SSCs (VM)
1
UCL
Cancer Biology
2
UCL
ES&R
2
n/a
SSCs (VM)
2
UCL
Mechanisms of Drug Action
2
UCL
MMB
2
UCL
N&B
2
UCL
RDG
2
All home sites
IOM
4
All home sites
Pathological Sciences (Module A)
4
All home sites
Pathological Sciences (Module C)
4
RF
Module A
4
RF
Module B
4
UCLH
Module A
4
UCLH
Module B
4
Whit
Module A
4
Whit
Module B
4
Barnet
Paediatrics
5
Basildon
O&G
5
CFH
Paediatrics
5
Colchester
O&G
5
King George
O&G
5
King George
Paediatrics
5
Lister
O&G
5
Luton
O&G
5
Luton
Paediatrics
5
National Hospital
for Neurology &
Neurosurgery
Neurology
5
NMH
O&G
5
NMH
Paediatrics
5
CFH
O&G
5
Lister
Paediatrics
5
18
RF
O&G
5
UCLH
O&G
5
UCLH
Paediatrics
5
Watford
O&G
5
Watford
Paediatrics
5
Whit
O&G
5
Whit
Paediatrics
5
Barnet
A&E
6
Basildon
A&E
6
Basildon
Medicine
6
Basildon
Surgery
6
CFH
A&E
6
CFH
Medicine
6
CFH
Surgery
6
Lister
A&E
6
Lister
Medicine
6
Lister
Surgery
6
Luton
A&E
6
Luton
Medicine
6
Luton
Surgery
6
n/a
SSCs (VM)
6
NMH
A&E
6
NMH
Medicine
6
NMH
Surgery
6
Watford
A&E
6
Watford
Medicine
6
Watford
Surgery
6
All home sites
Anatomy & Imaging (VM)
n/a
All home sites
Clinical Skills and Practical Procedures (VM)
n/a
All home sites
Patient Pathway Year 1&2 Integrated & Community
(VM)
n/a
All home sites
Cardiometabolic Patient Pathway (VM)
2
All home sites
Cancer Medicine Patient Pathway (VM)
4
UCL
FH&D
1
All home sites
Pathological Sciences (Module B)
4
Barnet
O&G
5
Basildon
Paediatrics
5
RF
Paediatrics
5
Barnet
Medicine
6
Barnet
Surgery
6
All home sites
Mental Health (VM)
n/a
19
All home sites
Use of Evidence (VM)
n/a
RF
Module C
4
UCLH
Module C
4
Whittington
Module C
4
All home sites
Use of Medicine (VM)
n/a
All home sites
Social Determinants of Health (VM)
n/a
20