UCL MEDICAL SCHOOL
Quality Assurance Unit
Summary of Student Evaluation
Questionnaire Data
2010-11
1
1. Mechanisms of Student Feedback in the MBBS Course from UCL Medical School, Faculty
of Medical Sciences
1.1 Scope:
There is some ambiguity in the term “student feedback”. This can mean either:
1. feedback to students (on their performance)
2. feedback from students (about their learning experience)
For the purposes of this document we are taking the second definition.
The Faculty of Biomedical Sciences (FBS) and the Faculty of Life Sciences (FLS) were the umbrella
faculties primarily responsible for the MBBS programme in 2010-111. This report collates all the evaluation
data for the whole MB BS programme. By its nature, the MB BS programme differs from other UCL
undergraduate courses. This is not just due to its length (standard 6 years) and complexity, but to the
number of individuals involved in delivering teaching, regulation by external professional bodies,
competency-based assessment rather than the conventional degree classification system and the entry of
over 50 transfer students from Oxbridge into the clinical course. The 2010-2011 course was delivered by
these two Faculties and many Primary Care Trusts and NHS Trusts.
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.
Overall, the students feel they are represented in most discussions relating to the quality of the course.
Partly driven by the sheer size of the faculty and the complexity of the clinical course, the introduction of the
on-line system for gathering feedback through student evaluation questions has greatly aided our QA
practices and the ease of use of our on-line questionnaires is appreciated by the students.
A more recent development has arisen from a number of research projects over the last few years which
have used qualitative methods to study the student experience. We have been impressed by the additional
information obtained in these studies, usually into specific aspects of curriculum change, and now use focus
groups as a routine part of feedback; for example, to add depth to our quality processes or to understand
what drives student choices in optional modules.
A particularly strong relationship, and feedback process, exists between the student representative system
and UCL Medical School who effectively work together and input into an array of quality assurance
procedures enabling us to provide robust quality enhancement of the MBBS programme.
1
In August 2011 the School of Life Sciences was restructured into four faculties and the division of UCL Medical
School now sits in the Faculty of Medical Sciences.
2
Introduction
Phase 1
1
Year 1
2
Year 2
Phase 2
4
5
Year 3
Year 4
Phase 3
6
Medicine, Surgery, A&E
General Practice
7
GP attachments Phase 2 & 3
Vertical Modules
8
Pathological Sciences, PDS, SSC
NHS Sites
10
Central Sites
11
DGHs
Appendices
1
Detailed Overall Percentage Positive Score Breakdown
2
References
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 Student Evaluating Questionnaire (SEQ) system using the Opinio6 software. August 2010
saw the introduction of an upgraded version of Opinio6, which has enhanced reporting and drill
down facilities and improved security. In 2010-11 we received over 15,000 individual responses
of combined numerical data and free text, however for the purpose of this report 5,728 individual
responses were considered for the various modules being reported on. Response rate (RR)
varies between 27- 100% and the average response rates for phases 1, 2 and 3 are 50, 51 and
41% respectively.
Modules and Sites: this is the second year that the Quality Assurance Unit (QAU) took over the
monitoring of Phase 1 and now all data (except GP, MBPhD and PDS data) is collected by the
QAU. Data is collected about each module and, for Phase 2 & 3, 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: SEQ data has been traditionally used in planning and preparation of NHS QA/SIFT site
visits. 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 Undergraduate
Teaching Committees to evaluate the ‘health’ and delivery of modules. All elected student reps
have full access to aid them in their role.
Challenges
 Several of the phase 1 questionnaires were distributed later than usual and resulted in
lower response rates. This has been duly noted and we intend to avoid this problem in the
future.

Response rates & student fatigue: In order to maintain reliability, response rate needs
to be sustained – long SEQs clearly produce fatigue and drop-out. Results from a miniSEQ study for modules that had received consistently positive feedback reveal that
student response rates were not affected by the number of questions. During 2009-10
mandatory core questions were introduced at the start of all questionnaires, with the aim
of capturing key information, even when the survey is not fully completed. This enables
longitudinal comparisons between different modules.

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.
Actions: During 2010-11 summaries of issues produced for MMG, and UGTC (e.g. Yr3
Surgery at Royal Free Campus) and active follow-up of student concerns.
Wider debate regarding problems faced by MMG chairs in effecting change

High data volume: Ideally, prompt, high quality summaries should help focus action
necessary to address problems. The QAU hopes that the new summarising and drill-down
capabilities of Opinio6 will facilitate closing the loop.

Critical or exceptional incidents: dealing with one-off comments that raise significant
issues of one or two students.
Action: Review in conjunction with Bullying and Harassment policy. A more spontaneous
mechanism for student feedback should exist alongside the regular end of module
4
monitoring. To this end, the texting system to report “no-shows” of teachers was
introduced and a ‘Raising Student Concerns’ website has been developed including a
confidential on-line reporting system to report incidents has been developed.

Development of a league table (Appendix 1)
Within each of the SEQs the students are asked to provide an overall positive rating of
their experience. Appendix 1 is a table which details comparative data of overall positive
ratings for individual modules/vertical spines throughout the MBBS.
PHASE 1
1.
YEAR 1
The scores for most of the Year 1 modules showed a mostly positive rating which was good.
Comments suggest that students rated the “workload about right” or “more than expected” which
may suggest that the course is stretching them appropriately. Students praised the variety of
teaching methods used and valued Moodle applications.
Foundations of Health and Disease Module (RR 73%, Overall Rating 57%)
Again, a number of students found this module confusing, partly because of the disjointed nature
of the material covered (with unclear objectives). Students reported that time spent on various
topics were often ‘unbalanced’.
Students praised the variety of teaching methods; FBL/CAL. Online Moodle quizzes well received
as useful learning tool, however requested sit down formative written assessments as they were
still viewed as a more useful indicator of student progression.
In need of improvement… less dependence of online assessments - include sit-down formative
written assessments. Help students to cope with lack of unifying theme for the module.
Infection and Defence Module (RR 70%, Overall Rating 96%)
Overall cohesiveness and organisation of this module was appreciated
Students praised the online notes and the podcasts. The case studies and end-of-week quizzes
were especially well-received.
Circulation and Breathing Module (RR 61%, Overall Rating 85%)
Mostly positive feedback. Again, practical sessions and the integrated teaching day in the clinical
skill laboratory were exceptionally well-received. Subjects linked well to the clinical aspects of
physiology and pathology. Reports that curriculum was often complex and that subjects/lectures
(sociology) were ‘bunched’/compressed.
In need of improvement… introduce more summary lectures at the end of the week, and more
detailed lecture notes. More scheduled tutorials would be useful.
Fluids, Nutrition and Metabolism Module (RR 50%, Overall Rating 72%)
Overall the content of the module and its delivery were well-received. Students appreciated the
variety of teaching methods employed to deliver the module.
2.
Year 2
Generally in Year 2, most activities well received. Analysis of feedback suggests that the course
is challenging and interesting. SPL’s and CAL’s were well received. RDG Module received an
overall positive rating of 47% students reported problems with cancelled lectures and poorly
5
maintained Moodle information.
Movement and Musculoskeletal Biology Module (RR 60%, Overall Rating 70%)
Many non-lecture activities scored highly (dissection room sessions particularly positive).
Workload in anatomy considered challenging, but interesting.
Neuroscience and Behaviour Module (RR 27%, Overall Rating 64%)
Students reported finding the module extremely interesting though challenging.
In need of improvement… Re-visit workload, students reported that the workload was “too much”.
Module perceived as being intense; disorganised and quite disjointed. Increase number of
tutorials to consolidate lecturing.
Endocrine Systems and Regulation Module (RR 46%, Overall Rating 90%)
Module received high praise from the students. Workload reported as “about right”. CALs and
PBL sessions were particularly well received. Some students reported that the module was often
repetitive.
Reproduction, Development and Genetics Module (RR 36%, Overall Rating 47%)
Overall mostly positive. SPL’s and CAL’s well received and highly relevant.
In need of improvement… improve module content -module perceived as less cohesive,
disjointed and not organized. Improve organisation and timetable -lectures were often cancelled,
and Moodle component was particularly poor with late updates and out-of-date information.
Cancer Biology (1-week module) (RR 27%, Overall Rating 87%)
Generally positive feedback.
In need of improvement… To review Computational Cancer (many students did not understand
its relevance). Consider extending the session to 2 weeks, and scheduling earlier/not to close to
final exams.
Mechanisms of Drug Action
There is no overall positive rating to report for this module.
Comments generally positive. Many believed that the sessions were comprehensive, with a lot to
learn in a short space of time. Prof Foreman was highly praised for his lectures. Some
assumption of previous knowledge of the subject area.
In need of improvement… more detailed lecture notes on Moodle (ensure notes are unlocked to
enable editing and/or printing).
6
PHASE 2
4.
Year 3
Care of the Older Person (RR 51%, Overall Rating 87%)
Generally positive feedback. Bedside and ward round teaching praised.
In need of improvement…Improve scheduling between UCLH and St Pancras. To ensure all
study materials and up-to-date timetables are available on Moodle.
Orthopaedics and Rheumatology
Most teaching is praised by students.
Orthopaedics (Overall Rating 63%)
Out-patient clinics and lectures//tutorials praised. More bedside teaching wanted. Students at
Royal Free reported that some nursing staff were intimidating and rude.
Rheumatology (Overall Rating 86%)
Positive ‘overall’ score. Students valued ‘notes on Rheumatology’ handbook. Again, students
reported frequent cancellations of teaching and clashes with Ortho clinics were also reported
(Especially at the Royal Free).
General Medicine inc MiC (RR 58%, Overall Rating 80%)
Generally well organised with a good variety of clinical cases. Students agreed that they were
appropriately challenged. Cardiology and AAU were praised; however, more surgery teaching
was requested. “GP Placements were excellent”.
Teaching cancellations still appear to be a big issue for the module. Students requested the rescheduling of cancelled sessions. Again, mixed feedback for all aspects of In-course
assessments was reported – useful but marking widely seen as unfair, inconsistent and not
standardised.
In need of improvement… smaller groups and supervised sessions requested for Harvey session
(37% rated session useful). Improvement to Respiratory firm at Whittington. Improve student
experience-students reported that the firm was “awful”, with no scheduled teaching and many
cancellations.
General Medical Specialties (RR 60%, Overall Rating 53%)
‘Excellent’ Teaching and well organised/scheduled, however more clinics and ward teaching
requested. Gastroenterology and Haematology praised. Timetables across all sites (unclear, out
of date, full of mistakes).
In need of improvement… Students need better support to benefit from seeing so many
specialties in such a short period. Organisation and timetabling require improvement for
Haematology/Oncology firm. Reduce high number of no-shows/cancellations. Improve timetables
(complex and out-of-date).
Surgery (RR 50%, Overall Rating 53%)
Good feedback generally. Common positive comments include; good variety; high standard of
teaching; hands on experience; anaesthetics; ENT; Urology; Clinical Skills and Critical Care; well
organised; good variety; friendly staff; good variety; few cancellations; good teaching;
enthusiastic teachers; lots of lectures.
7
There were however some notable exceptions. Common negative feedback from students
included better organisation; fewer cancellations of consultant teaching sessions; Timetabling
and poor organisation; RF HPB firm; greater variety; more structured theatre time; more core/
consultant teaching (in particular bedside teaching); ‘Good teaching when it happened’; more
willingness to teach; improved timetabling (too confusing at present, avoid clashes, and update
material); better organisation of firms.
In need of improvement… improving timetables / vary specialty contact / fewer teaching
cancellations. Improve ongoing issues of Year 3 Surgery at Royal Free.
Use of Medicine and the Taught Course (RR 33%, Overall Rating 71%)
Students enjoyed the standardised teaching the module provided and reported that the broad
coverage of topics consolidated learning/knowledge.
80% feel that the taught course should not be replaced with weekly in-firm teaching.
Again, some technical problems with Livenet reported.
In need of improvement... improve Practical Prescribing session – students felt less prepared
during OSCE. Reduce cancellations in teaching. Students expressed disappointment for
cancellation of Dermatology lecture. It was reported further that the dermatology lecture notes on
Moodle were poor and out of date.
Cancer Medicine (RR 39%, Overall Rating 50%)
Mixed opinion on Cancer in Medicine Module was reported with Learning Experience rated at
50%. Students positive about the cancer management aspect of the module and the value of the
continuity of patient contact.
Some students reported that the module was repetitive and believed that it would be a more
useful use of time if the module/subject was integrated into rest of the curriculum and not
delivered as a separate module focussing on a longitudinal patient study.
In need of improvement ....many aspects of project were reported as stressful for some students.
Again, significant improvement needed in process of recruiting patients. Induction and tutorials
sessions need to address student anxiety and resistance to dealing with cancer patient mortality.
ICCM (RR 65%, Overall Rating 82%)
Generally good feedback. Students commended PAL’s sessions, Practical clinical skills sessions,
the variety of teaching methods employed and the organisation of the course. Many reports of
teaching cancellations.
5.
Year 4
Overall the three modules are very well received. Most DGHs provide good teaching, are
welcoming and provide helpful inductions.
For Paediatrics and Women’s Health, the student experience appears to be affected by order of
learning (i.e. having Home attachment first gives basic grounding which is excellent preparation
for DGH experience, but not vice versa).
Child and Family Health with Dermatology (RR 44%, Overall Rating 73%)
8
Paediatrics (Overall Rating 74%)
Students appreciated the large amounts of teaching, especially bedside teaching. Prescribing
skills sessions were much appreciated.
Dermatology
Excellent feedback about Dr Dhoat’s lectures. Clinics seem quite patchy – some very worthwhile,
others where students were made to feel unwelcome or weren’t allowed to examine patients.
Women’s Health and Communicable Disease (RR 44%, Overall Rating 79%)
Women’s Health (Overall Rating 77%)
Generally good feedback on the enthusiasm of doctors and midwifes, and their keenness to get
students involved. Lots of comments about timetable clashes, not knowing whether to go to clinic
or teaching, or teachers not showing up for clinical teaching.
Communicable Diseases (Overall Rating 85%)
Good feedback on the organisation of the module, the welcome by staff and the opportunity to
see patients in clinic. Dr Shetty’s teaching mentioned a number of times as especially good.
Clinical Neurosciences (RR 38%, Overall Rating 77%)
Psychiatry (Overall Rating 73%)
Wide range of experiences, most students appreciated the opportunity to work in smaller groups
and to work closely with individuals/teams. High quality of teaching.
Neurology (Overall Rating 83%)
Good balance of bedside teaching, lectures and self directed learning. Numerous comments
about the high standard of teaching and inspirational teachers.
Ophthalmology (Overall Rating 70%)
Good feedback about the actual teaching but several students commented that there is not
enough time for ophthalmology, and too many students in a clinic.
6.
Year 5
Final Year attachments (RR 41%, Overall Rating 81%)
With the introduction of the new curriculum, this is the first year of the new Year 6 structure where
much of the emphasis is on preparation for practice. The new curriculum has seen the
introduction of assistantships (in line with Tomorrows Doctors 2009).
Generally very good feedback. Shadowing a foundation doctor and having opportunities to carry
out practical procedures were both popular and described as educational, useful, and enjoyable.
Bedside teaching also well received and there were requests for more scheduled teaching
particularly in surgery and ward rounds.
Some reports indicating inconsistent support identifying learning needs and objectives. Only 12%
students found multisource feedback useful (general clinical method and aspects of
performance). Many reported difficulties in receiving feedback particularly whilst on GP
placement (no access to nurses and other healthcare workers).
9
Assistantships were introduced this year and were well received. Many students reported that the
assistantship was valuable in gaining clinical experience; however some reported that some
Tutors/Education supervisors appeared confused about what the assistantship entailed. There
also appears to be some organisational disparity between DGHs. At Basildon, it was reported
that the assistantship runs across the whole session of the rotation, others have more structured
4 week sessions.
Almost all received an induction and reported that it made a positive difference to the overall
experience.
IT/Library provision: issue across some sites, including out-of-hours access to IT/library facilities
and access to internet at Halls.
7
General Practice – phase 2 & 3
Overall more than 90% of students rate GP based teaching as either good or excellent. By far
the most frequently recurring feature which students feedback positively upon is the opportunity
provided in Core General Practice (Core GP) placements is the chance to see and assess
patients on their own before discussing them with the GP tutor.
The most frequently occurring negative issue is travelling time and cost.
8
Vertical Spines/Modules
Pathological Sciences
The response rate for students invited respond to the surveys ranges from 55% to 29%, and
there is a notably high drop off rate. Again this may be a result of the design of the questionnaires
and/or the structure/delivery of Pathological Sciences teaching.
COOP / O&R (RR 40% Overall Rating 56% - Mean)
.
Generally positive feedback. Students found the handbooks useful however it was reported that
presentation slides during lectures were often different from those in the handbook. Cancellation
of lectures was reported.
Students indicated that material covered was repetitious of Year 1 and 2 teaching, and many
reported that the Haem topics overlapped with the GenMed Spec week.
Again, complaints about the lecture theatre (cold, lack of desk-space for writing and microphones
not working/being used) were repeated.
Gen Med MiC (RR 40% Overall Rating 88% - Mean)
Student’s feedback comments were very positive. Course was well organised, engaging, relevant
and challenging at times. Students praised the interactive nature of topics/sessions (Upper
Respiratory Tract Infection)
Some repetition was reported with some overlap with the Taught Course; however students
believed that this only consolidated their learning. 100% attendance by lecturers was reported.
Gen Med Spec (RR 43% Overall score 72% - Mean)
Lecture schedule was exhausting, and many students found the limited time to cover some
difficult topics overwhelming (Immunology and Liver and Kidney). Cancelled lectures and
lateness was a common problem and students raised the issue of out of date lecture notes (notes
not compatible with the lecture notes in handbook). Some repetition was reported with some
students requesting to move surgery lectures into the Surgery week.
10
Surgery (RR 40% Overall score 39%)
Positive feedback was reported for lectures where lecturers were in attendance. Students praised
the quiz sessions (Hernias – Mr Sarker).
Cancellation of lectures/lateness and the poor maintenance of information on Moodle were
common issues raised by students. Students appeared frustrated by lecture cancellations. This
was further exacerbated by reports that some of the lecture notes were not posted on Moodle.
Students reported that in instances where notes were posted on Moodle some were out of date,
or were the ‘wrong notes’. Students also reported that lecture notes were not the same as the
lecture notes in handbook).
Some repetition was reported with some overlap with the GenMed Spec week.
Professional Development Spine
Phase 1 (Overall Score 85%)
Most students responded positively to PDS in Phase 1. Generally students would like to see
fewer lectures, smaller group working and more placements
Phase 2 (Overall Score 83%)
Feedback was very positive overall. Students valued smaller group sessions. Again, students
would like to see fewer lectures, smaller group working and more placements.
Phase 3
Feedback was positive overall. Students valued the ‘Case of the Month’ (75% agreed that
session was very useful) and agreed that it was a useful integrative exercise.
9 Student selected components
It is difficult to report data for the individual SSCs as there are a large range of options, with only
a small number of students doing each topic.
Year 1 SSCs (RR 58%, Overall Rating 69%)
A number of students commented that they would like more information on the assessment
before signing up to the SSC, and that the assessment for some SSCs seemed to be a
disproportionate amount of work compared to other SSCs, or other elements of the MBBS
course.
Year 2 SSCs (RR 39%, Overall Rating 87%)
Feedback was generally very positive, although it seems that some SSCs have a problem with
organisation, with students unsure where to go or what to do.
Year 3 SSCs (RR 50%, Overall Rating 88%)
Most SSCs very positively evaluated. There were a number of comments about poor organisation
of the language SSC, with students put in to inappropriate classes for their skill level, and feeling
unprepared for the assessment.
Year 5 SSCs (RR 61%, Overall Rating 89%)
Feedback extremely positive.
11
10 NHS sites
The student feedback sections are 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). The
percentage number is the number of positive responses (taken as either 4 or 5).
11 Central Sites
Royal Free
Gen Med Spec
91%
Anaesthetics
65%
Gen Med MiC
85%
Urology
71%
COOP
73%
ENT
75%
Orthopaedics
57%
CHFD
76%
Rheumatology
71%
WHCD
53%
Surgery
23%
CN
64%
Generally improved feedback especially in Gen Med Spec, Gen Med MiC most medical attachments
very well received.
In need of improvement.....some patchy feedback relating to Orthopaedics, and WHCD especially with
regard to cancellations (or no-shows), poor organisation/scheduling and many timetable clashes.
Orthopaedics – inconsistent mentoring/feedback was reported. 37% of students reported that they
could discuss their learning needs with a clinical teacher. Although students had a named mentor
many reported that the mentor was not actively involved in their educational supervision and many felt
that the level of communication with mentors was not available. Students reported that nursing staff
were obstructive and rude.
Surgery at Royal Free received consistently poor feedback. Lack of willingness to teach; poor
timetabling (timetable clashes and out-of-date material in handbooks and Moodle) and a high number
of cancelled teaching sessions dominated student feedback.
UCLH
Gen Med Spec
63%
Anaesthetics
74%
Gen Med MiC
95%
Urology
37%
COOP
98%
ENT
57%
Orthopaedics
57%
CHFD
78%
Rheumatology
97%
WHCD
83%
Surgery
66%
Excellent feedback in many areas especially Gen Med MiC, Rheumatology, COOP and WHCD.
12
In need of improvement.....
ENT – problems around organisation were repeated with complex timetables, timetable clashes with
firm based teaching and teaching cancellations persisting.
Urology – comments that there was not enough timetabled teaching (clinical and ward teaching).
Some students reported that there was very little patient contact.
Whittington
Gen Med Spec
66%
Anaesthetics
83%
Gen Med MiC
54%
Urology
57%
COOP
91%
ENT
57%
Orthopaedics
74%
CHFD
74%
Rheumatology
90%
WHCD
95%
Surgery
79%
Feedback good to excellent in all areas, with a significant improvement in ENT
In need of improvement..... Urology - students reported that session was unorganised with
inaccuracies in the timetable. Comments indicate many consultants were unavailable for teaching with
some teaching cancellations. More ward rounds teaching was requested. For ENT, comments indicate
timetabling issues and cancellations of teaching still remain problematic. Students also reported
overcrowding during teaching sessions.
Gen Med MiC ratings were reduced from 78% (2009-10) to 54%. Reports of consultant teaching
cancellations for the Respiratory attachment reached unprecedented levels. Students expressed
frustration at the level of teaching cancellations and felt ‘redundant’. Poor communication between the
teaching staff was also observed in the feedback comments. Students reported that Junior Dr’s often
‘did not know what to do’ and often appeared poorly briefed on teaching responsibilities. Students
requested more opportunities to learn about stress tests, ECG’s and angiograms, and welcomed more
learning opportunities at the Heart hospital.
12 Year 4 and 5 DGH Attachments
Generally very good overall feedback from all sites with some specific issues in a few areas or
modules (see above)
In need of improvement... IT access is an increasing problem for students at a number of sites both for
internet and for PACs access. This is being addressed both locally and at Medical School level but this
needs to be communicated to students. Accommodation remains patchy at some sites.
Barnet
CFHD
70%
WHCD
73%
CN
100%
Medicine
60%
Surgery
28%
A&E
34%
Praise for the very supportive and friendly staff (especially FY1 and FY2 doctors) that were
enthusiastic and the provision of a good range of teaching activities. The student feedback for Year 4
modules is on the whole excellent; however, Year 5 (surgical teaching and A&E) received poor
student feedback. Students reported the need for more consultant led teaching and to introduce
bedside teaching into the schedule. 5% of students found multi source feedback useful, and 39% had
adequate opportunities to complete the procedures scorecard (difficulties completing suturing and
female catheterisation procedures). Administrative support was rated 34% comments referred to poor
organisation and scheduling. Students reported that frequent alterations/last minute changes to
timetable were communicated too late.
13
Basildon
CFHD
50%
WHCD
70%
Medicine
87%
Surgery
53%
A&E
87%
The student feedback is generally good, notably WHCD, Medicine and A&E. Students praised
consultant led teaching and the structured FY1 and FY2 doctors. Mock OSCE’s, multisource teaching
and plenty of clerking opportunities were commended. Students reported that the surgery attachment
was repetitive. Overcrowding during the attachment was also raised as an issue of concern. Student’s
reported that ward rounds were shared with repeating students and SSC students. Complaints
regarding poor accommodation were raised. Comments included kitchens lacking basic equipment
such as stoves and fridges.
Chase Farm
CFHD
76%
WHCD
85%
CN
78%
Medicine
80%
Surgery
82%
A&E
100%
The student feedback is excellent with the vast majority of questions receiving positive scores of over
80%.
Cancellations of timetabled teaching sessions were a problem (Year 5). Students reported difficulty
accessing library computers (out of hours).
King George
CFHD
79%
WHCD
100%
Excellent feedback. WHCD teaching was exceptional.
Lister
CFHD
36%
WHCD
75%
Medicine
60%
Surgery
60%
A&E
70%
Student feedback is generally good. WHCD seen obvious improvement from the previous year (rated
45% 2009-10). Year 5 feedback mixed however positive overall (70% rating overall). Students on
surgery and A&E attachments reported limited scheduled teaching and fewer bedside teaching
opportunities. Many teaching cancellations were reported at Lister.
CFHD received a significant drop on ratings (56% 2009-10). Students initially received the wrong/out
of date timetables at induction causing confusion. Additionally students reported that they had to
organise/manage their own teaching sessions. Only 36% students reported that they had a named
mentor who was actively involved in educational supervision, however, upto 45% reported that they
had no named mentor.
Accommodation and library/IT facilities were rated as good, however no internet access in the
accommodation.
Luton and Dunstable
CFHD
94%
WHCD
79%
Medicine
97%
Surgery
79%
A&E
69%
14
Students rate this attachment as excellent. Teaching by consultants, registrars, junior doctors and
clinicians was highly valued. More clerking opportunities were requested (Year 5).
Accommodation and IT/library facilities good, however no internet access in accommodation.
North Middlesex
CFHD
82%
WHCD
88%
Medicine
66%
Surgery
60%
A&E
60%
Excellent student feedback. Attachment has seen significant improvement in CFHD, Medicine and
Surgery (ratings last year – 46%, 59% and 35% respectively).
QEII
CFHD
0% (n=1)
WHCD
50%
Medicine
64%
Surgery
36%
A&E
36%
Student feedback is variable, with good evaluation for Year 5 Medicine. Student feedback for CFHD,
WHCD, Surgery and A&E is not so good.
Feedback for CFHD was difficult to evaluate despite receiving a poor overall rating. This was due to
the fact that only one student completed the feedback questionnaire, therefore making data, less
reliable and meaningful. For WHCD 100% of students reported that they had received an induction,
however almost all students responding reported that the timetables were wrong, out of date and
incomplete. As a result students missed valuable clinic and teaching experience. Some students
reported that the attachment was not very organised.
Year 5 student feedback was variable. Teaching by junior doctors was praised by students; however
teaching by senior consultants and registrars was reported as almost non-existent. The weakest
areas are lack of bedside and scheduled teaching. One student transferred to Stevenage hospital for
the remainder of the attachment (surgery and medicine) as a result of the lack of teaching.
Administrative staff were reported as very supportive (90%).
Watford
CFHD
61%
WHCD
81%
Medicine
81%
Surgery
63%
A&E
81%
Year 5 student feedback is excellent. The free text reported the staff being welcoming and
encouraging. Teaching at all levels was praised and students commended both scheduled and non
scheduled teaching. The administrators were very supportive. More bedside teaching requested.
15
Appendix 1
This data is generated from a question in all SEQs regarding each student’s overall satisfaction with the
placement/module. Responses are gathered on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 =
strongly agree), and the scores of 4 and 5 are amalgamated to produce the “overall percentage positive
score” (in the same way that they are with the National Student Survey). The numeric feedback is colour
coded green, amber and red. The table below shows an example of how the system is used:
Range
60-100%
40-59%
0-39%
Meaning
Good
Not adequate/ room for improvement
Must be improved greatly
Hospital
Placement
Year
UCL
I&D
1
UCL
C&B
1
n/a
SSCs
1
UCL
FNM
1
UCL
ES&R
2
n/a
SSCs
2
UCL
N&B
2
UCL
MMB
2
UCL
Cancer Biology
2
UCLH
Gen Med MiC
3
RF
Gen Med Spec
3
Whit
COOP
3
n/a
SSCs
3
UCLH
COOP
3
RF
Rheumatology
3
Whit
Anaesthetics
3
Whit
Gen Med Spec
3
Whit
Orthopaedics
3
RF
Urology
3
RF
Gen Med MiC
3
UCLH
Rheumatology
3
RF
ENT
3
Whit
Rheumatology
3
Whit
Surgery
3
UCLH
Surgery
3
All home sites
ICCM
3
UCLH
Anaesthetics
3
RF
Anaesthetics
3
RF
COOP
3
UCLH
Gen Med Spec
3
All home sites
Use of Medicine / the
Taught Course
3
16
RF
ENT
3
Watford
Paediatrics
4
King George
Paediatrics
4
NMH
O&G
4
Colchester
O&G
4
Edgware
O&G
4
Luton
Paediatrics
4
Whit
O&G
4
Barnet
Highgate
Mental Health
Clinic
O&G
4
St Pancras
Communicable
Diseases
Communicable
Diseases
Communicable
Diseases
Communicable
Diseases
Luton
O&G
4
Watford
O&G
4
UCLH
O&G
4
King George
O&G
4
Barnet
Paediatrics
4
CFH
O&G
4
RF
CN (Neurology only)
4
Basildon
O&G
4
Whit
Paediatrics
4
UCLH
Paediatrics
4
RF
Paediatrics
4
CFH
Paediatrics
4
NMH
Paediatrics
4
Lister
O&G
4
Luton
A&E
5
Luton
Medicine
5
Lister
Medicine
5
Watford
A&E
5
NMH
A&E
5
CFH
Surgery
5
Watford
Medicine
5
Luton
Surgery
5
Basildon
Medicine
5
n/a
SSCs
5
Barnet
Medicine
5
Watford
Surgery
5
CFH
Medicine
5
Lister
A&E
5
Basildon
A&E
5
St Anne’s
St Margaret’s
4
4
4
4
17
Lister
Surgery
5
NMH
Surgery
5
QE2
Medicine
5
CFH
A&E
5
QE2
O&G
4
UCL
FH&D
1
UCL
RD&G
2
All home sites
Cancer Medicine
3
Whit
Gen Med MiC
3
UCLH
Orthopaedics
3
RF
Orthopaedics
3
Whit
Urology
3
UCLH
ENT
3
RF
O&G
4
Basildon
Paediatrics
4
Basildon
Surgery
5
NMH
Medicine
5
QE2
Surgery
5
RF
Surgery
3
UCLH
3
Mascalls
Urology
Communicable
Diseases
Lister
Paediatrics
4
QE2
Paediatrics
4
Barnet
A&E
5
QE2
A&E
5
Barnet
Surgery
5
4
18
Appendix 2 Sources
C&B
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=19307&rft=1
FHD
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=23608&rft=1
FNM
I&D
SSC YR 1
Cancer
ESR
iBSc
MMB
NS & B
RDG
SSC YR 2
Cancer Medicine
COOP O&R
GENMED MiC
GENMED Spec
ICCM
YR3 SSC
Renal Teaching (Yr 3)
Surgery
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=710584&rft=1
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=25528&rft=1
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=271092&rft=1
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=312191&rft=1
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=28239&rft=1
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=735450&rft=1
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=23621&rft=1
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=28604&rft=1
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=286254&rft=1
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=271952&rft=1
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=270602&rft=1
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=22369&rft=1
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=19311&rft=1
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=19598&rft=1
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=20819&rft=1
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=27453&rft=1
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=736214&rft=1
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=22531&rft=1
Path Sciences
COOP O&R
GENMED Spec
GenMed MiC
Surgery
Block1,
Block1,
Block1,
Block1,
Yr 3 SSC
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=22531&rft=1
Taught Course
& Use of Medicine
CFHD
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=752555&rft=1
WHCD
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=19841&rft=1
CN
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=20277&rft=1
Final Year
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=753057&rft=1
Yr 5 SSC
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=22106&rft=1
GP Placement
Various
Block2,
Block2,
Block2,
Block2,
Block3,
Block3,
Block3,
Block3,
Block4
Block4
Block4
Block4
https://opinio.ucl.ac.uk/rpt.do?a=rpt&rid=19585&rft=1
19