MEDICAL SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
UCL MEDICAL SCHOOL
Quality Assurance Unit
Summary of Student Evaluation
Questionnaire Data
2011-12
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 Faculty of Life Sciences
(FLS). This is a joint report from the two faculties on the MBBS course. By its nature, the MBBS 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 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. The
course is delivered by two Faculties and by 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, FMS pioneered the
introduction of the on-line system for gathering feedback through student evaluation questions (SEQs). Over
the years this has 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. 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.
2
Introduction
1
Year 1
2
Year 2
3
Year 3
4
Year 4
5
Year 5
General Practice
6
GP attachments Years 4,5 & 6
Vertical Modules
7
Pathological Sciences, PDS & SSC
NHS Sites
8
Central Sites
9
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 SEQ system using the Opinio6 software. In 2011-12 we received over 15,000 individual
responses of combined numerical data and free text, however for the purpose of this report 5,954
individual responses were considered for the various modules being reported on. Response rate
(RR) varies between 22- 84%.
Modules and Sites: this is the third year that the Quality Assurance Unit (QAU) took over the
monitoring of Years 1 & 2 and now all data (except GP, MBPhD and Vertical Module data) is
collected by the QAU. Data is collected about each module and, for Years 3, 4 and 5, 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: 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.



Low response rates are becoming an issue. This was prevalent in Year 2 and some other
modules later on. In CN the delivery of the invitations was changed so that the student
evaluations were posted three days before the end of the rotation. This was in response
to a request by C&I Foundation Trust. Some improvement was seen.
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.
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
monitoring. To this end, the texting system to report “no-shows” of teachers was
introduced and a ‘Raising Concerns’ website has been developed including a confidential
on-line reporting system to report incidents has been developed.
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 provide a good foundation in
medicine. Students praised the variety of teaching methods used and valued Moodle
applications. The full introduction of Lecturecasts in 2011-12 was well received as a useful
teaching tool.
Foundations of Health and Disease Module (RR 84%, Overall Rating 56%)
Module provided a good introduction to medicine. Online Moodle quizzes were well received and
considered as a useful learning tool; more consistently-delivered feedback was requested.
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.
Embryology sessions were considered complex and challenging, particularly for the first week of
teaching. Students requested rescheduling the sessions to later in the term.
In need of improvement… to publicize assessment deadlines and to provide course material
(lecture notes/slides) in advance, and preferably in hard copy to avoid high printing charges.
More relevant guidance notes for SPLs/online assessments is needed.
Infection and Defence Module (RR 69%, Overall Rating 97%)
Overall cohesiveness and organisation of this module was praised. Lectures were engaging and
informative.
Students praised the weekly formative assessments. Summary sessions were especially wellreceived.
In need of improvement… more CALs and SPLs requested to consolidate learning.
Circulation and Breathing Module (RR 64%, Overall Rating 82%)
Mostly positive feedback. Again, practical sessions including dissections, labs and tutorials were
exceptionally well-received. Students appreciated the emphasis on clinical relevance. Students
praised the range of teaching methods. SPLs were particularly useful in consolidating learning.
In need of improvement… again, students requested more summary lectures at the end of the
week, and more detailed lecture notes. More scheduled tutorials and CALs would be useful and
numerous reports of unstructured and fragmented teaching need to be attended to.
Fluids, Nutrition and Metabolism Module (RR 46%, Overall Rating 68%)
Overall the content of the module was well-received although students found the biochemistry
sessions challenging. Students praised the PBL sessions.
In need of improvement… more biochemistry tutorials might be helpful.
5
2.
Year 2
Generally in Year 2 most activities well received. The feedback indicates that the course is
challenging and interesting. The Dissection Room sessions (DR sessions), SPLs and CALs were
highly praised. As with Year 1 feedback, Lecturecast was received very positively.
Movement and Musculoskeletal Biology Module (RR 47%, Overall Rating 72%)
Module rated highly. Feedback on DR sessions particularly positive.
Again, feedback indicates that the workload in anatomy was challenging but interesting. Students
requested that less time is spent on the easier topics, and more focus on challenging topics.
Neuroscience and Behaviour Module (RR 54%, Overall Rating 81%)
Students again found the module extremely interesting though challenging. The variety of
teaching methods (such as video casting and DRs) was praised.
In need of improvement… students reported that the workload was “too much”, some
neuroanatomy teaching was rushed and disjointed, consolidate learning from the lectures by
increasing the number of tutorials. Teaching materials on Moodle need updating.
Endocrine Systems and Regulation Module (RR 38%, Overall Rating 92%)
Module received high praise from the students. Workload reported as “about right” although some
reported that there was too much emphasis on diabetes and thyroid. SPLs and CALs sessions
were particularly well received.
In need of improvement… consider changes to the timetable to avoid long gaps between
lectures.
Reproduction, Development and Genetics Module (RR 26%, Overall Rating 62%)
Overall mostly positive. Lectures were interesting and engaging, SPLs and CALs well-received
but students reported little clear connection with the lectures.
In need of improvement… improve module delivery - module perceived as disjointed and less
well organized. Students felt distracted from learning when teaching clashed with essay
submission deadlines for the Cardiometabolic Patient Pathway module.
Cancer Biology (1-week module) (RR 27%, Overall Rating 44%)
Generally positive feedback, although students reported that there was too much emphasis on
techniques used in cancer biology rather than research and development.
Students found the proteonomics and imaging sessions challenging and too detailed.
In need of improvement… consider introducing formative assessments, extending the session to
2 weeks and rescheduling deadlines to avoid clash with exams.
Mechanisms of Drug Action (Overall rating 68%)
Comments generally positive. Sessions were deemed interesting, engaging, comprehensive and
relevant. Students reported that there was good coordination between the sessions and the rest
of the module teaching; however there was some repetition of other PDS teaching sessions.
Again, Prof Foreman was highly praised for his lectures.
In need of improvement… consider the introduction of Moodle activities and CALs/SPL to
consolidate learning.
6
4.
Year 3
Overall teaching across modules very well received. Teaching cancellations and timetabling
issues remain problematic across the main sites.
Issues relating to surgery teaching at Royal Free persist. Mechanisms to improve the student
experience were introduced, and some students were relocated to Whittington and Luton &
Dunstable hospitals.
ICCM (RR 60%, Overall Rating 80%)
Generally good feedback. PALs/Clinical Skills sessions were praised.
Students claimed that nurses/consultants on wards were unaware of teaching (Royal Free and
Whittington). Many teaching cancellations reported for all three sites.
In need of improvement .... better communication about cancelled teaching sessions between
Medical School and central sites.
Care of the Older Person (RR 47%, Overall Rating 82%)
Very positive feedback. Timetabled teaching, bedside and ward round teaching highly praised.
Orthopaedics and Rheumatology
Generally positive feedback, although feedback across the central sites varied.
Orthopaedics (Overall Rating 45%)
Trauma sessions and fracture clinics praised (UCLH).
Students at Whittington Hospital and Royal Free reported a high level of teaching cancellation.
In need of improvement… improve organisation and timetabling at Whittington and Royal Free
(clashes and out of date timetables).
Rheumatology (Overall Rating 74%)
Positive ‘overall’ score. Very high standard of teaching reported at Royal Free. Again, students
reported frequent clashes with Ortho clinics at Royal Free and Whittington.
General Medicine inc MiC (RR 53%, Overall Rating 85%)
Generally well organised with a good exposure to each of the specialties. Acute medicine, AAU
and GP placements were highly praised, as were the on-take and bedside teaching opportunities.
At Royal Free students were very positive about the Simulation Centre – ‘an excellent learning
experience’.
In-course assessment reported as useful and relevant although many viewed the marking
schemes unfair and inconsistent. Students reported it difficult to ensure that assessors completed
online assessments, believing that assessors view online assessment as labour-intensive and not
a priority.
Teaching cancellations continue to be an issue for the module; students on respiratory firm at
Whittington reported that virtually no bedside teaching was received due to teaching
cancellations.
In need of improvement… ensure all learning materials are uploaded onto Moodle in advance of
lectures. Improve timetabling and organisation at Whittington (many reports of out-of-date
information and teaching clashes).
General Medical Specialties (RR 51%, Overall Rating 75%)
7
Excellent teaching and well-organised, particularly at the Royal Free, with opportunities to see a
wide variety of specialties.
Organisation at sites was variable. Students requested more flexibility to rotate between more
than one or two specialties (Royal Free and UCLH).
In need of improvement… more clinics and ward/bedside teaching requested, with students
requesting better support to benefit from seeing different specialties in such a short period.
Surgery (RR 43%, Overall Rating 46% *statistics relating to Luton & Dunstable
have been extracted)
Feedback was generally positive. Students praised the high standards of teaching and
appreciated exposure to theatres and opportunities to scrub in. They particularly positive about
the opportunity to rotate between a variety of specialties at UCLH and the Whittington.
Common negative feedback included cancellations of consultant teaching sessions, poor
timetabling and organisation (confusing timetables, clashes and out-of-date material).
In need of improvement… improvements to timetables and organisation (Royal Free and UCLH).
Consider improvements to delivery and organisation of ENT teaching at UCLH (numerous reports
of poor organisation and teaching cancellations).
Use of Medicine and the Taught Course (RR 22%, Average Overall Rating 59%)
Again students enjoyed the teaching provided in a standard format across all three sites. The
module was well-structured and well-taught; clinical pharmacology lectures were highly praised.
Technical problems with Livenet at Royal Free.
In need of improvement... improve coordination between medicine and therapeutic lectures as
students reported overlap and repetition. Update lecture slides (medicine) and teaching materials
on Moodle.
Cancer Medicine (RR 36%, Overall Rating 52%)
Module rated a positive learning experience overall, with positive comments about small group
tutorials and the oncology project. The patient journey project was reported as a valuable and
interesting experience.
Students disappointed by the lack of feedback given for the oncology project.
In need of improvement ....more guidance and support is needed for students undertaking the
patient journey. Some aspects of project were reported as stressful for some students,
particularly in relation to ending relationships with the patient. An improvement to the process of
recruiting patients is needed (system of recruitment was only rated 24% positive).
8
5.
Year 4
Overall all three modules are very well received. DGHs are welcoming, provide helpful inductions
and good teaching.
For WHCD, male students experience difficulty gaining consent to perform female intimate
examinations or to attend vaginal births.
Child and Family Health with Dermatology (RR 44%, Overall Rating 84%)
Paediatrics (Overall Rating 81%)
Students appreciated the large amounts of good quality teaching, especially bedside teaching,
and a good variety of specialties within the timetable. The clinical exposure in A&E was highly
praised.
Dermatology
Module draws generally positive feedback despite some challenging teaching.
In need of improvement ....more clinics and scheduled teaching – students reported that the
lectures were rushed.
Women’s Health and Communicable Disease (RR 40%, Overall Rating 78%)
Women’s Health - Obstetrics & Gynaecology (Overall Rating 77%)
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.
Cancellations in tutorial teaching were reported. Changes to the timetables meant that there were
limited opportunities to observe complete labours.
In need of improvement.... more opportunities to practice clinical skills. Improve the scheduling of
tutorials to avoid clashes with labour clinics, and consider extending the teaching session to a
whole day. Increase opportunities for male students to observe vaginal births.
Communicable Diseases/GUM/HIV (Overall Rating 85%)
Very positive feedback on the organisation of the module with opportunities to see patients in
clinic and to take patient histories.
Dr Shetty’s online Moodle lectures were reported as outstanding.
In need of improvement.... more clinical/ward-based teaching (infectious and tropical diseases).
Consider extending the number of HIV Clinics open to students. Improve organisation of wardbased teaching at the Royal Free. Many students reported that staff were unaware of their own
teaching sessions.
Clinical Neurosciences (RR 46%, Overall Rating 79%)
General Psychiatry and Specialist Psychiatry (Overall Rating 83% and 79%)
Generally positive feedback. Students praised the quality of teaching, particularly in relation to
GP attachments.
9
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.
Neurology (Overall Rating 75%)
Teaching at Queen Square was highly praised. The organisation and administrative support was
rated excellent. Consultant, registrar and bedside teaching were highly valued and students
reported that staff were friendly and approachable.
Teaching cancellations at Royal Free were reported. Students were concerned that they would
not be able to carry out sufficient observed patient examinations and therefore not collect enough
sign-offs.
Students requested more bedside teaching at the Royal Free. Many reported overcrowding on
ward rounds and too few patients to clerk.
In need of improvement.... consider providing more information on clinics so that students have
the flexibility to attend.
Ophthalmology
Formal and clinical teaching rated highly. Teaching at Moorfields was excellent and students
requested more time on Ophthalmology.
In need of improvement.... students reported repetition in teaching.
6.
Year 5
Final Year attachments (RR 46%, Overall Rating 85%. Overall Rating for Medicine
(88%), Surgery (79%) and A&E (77%)
This is the second year of the new Final Year structure.
Student feedback very positive. Shadowing a foundation doctor and having opportunities to carry
out clinical skills was invaluable. Students appreciated the opportunity for independent learning.
Consultant teaching at DGHs was highly praised and there were requests for more scheduled
teaching, particularly for surgery and ward rounds. Practical prescribing teaching by pharmacists
was highly praised.
Only 13% students found multisource feedback useful. Students reported that the system was
unfair, as many students got their friends to complete the feedback (hence the high average
scores). Again receiving feedback whilst on GP placement was problematic (no access to nurses
and other healthcare workers). Students found it difficult to complete the stated number of
procedures and so getting their procedure cards signed off was challenging, particularly in
relation to suturing.
Assistantships were generally well-received although there was some variability in the student
experience. Students allocated to North Middlesex Hospital reported that the assistantship was
too long (eight weeks long compared to other DGHs where the session was only four weeks).
There were some IT and Library provision issues across most sites. Out-of-hours access to
library and IT facilities (including internet access in accommodation) continues to be a problem.
7
General Practice – Years 3,4 and 5
Summary pending
8
Vertical Spines/Modules
Pathological Sciences
10
The response rate for module evaluations ranges from 20% to 58% and again a high drop off rate
is noted. Feedback is generally positive across different sessions; however the management
team’s decision to publicize course handbooks online led to many negative comments about high
printing costs. Hard copies of handbooks have been requested.
COOP / O&R (RR 36% Overall Rating 47% - Mean)
Generally positive feedback. Students commented that the module was very intensive and that
the amount of information given in a week was overwhelming.
Repetition of subject areas was reported. Comments indicate that material covered was
repetitious of Year 1 and 2 teaching; however the revision of subject areas was welcomed. Again,
many reported that the Haem topics overlapped with the GenMed Spec week.
Students found the handbooks useful but some of the information was out of date. It was also
reported that lecture slides were often different from those in the handbook.
General Medicine inc MiC (RR 40% Overall Rating 82% - Mean)
Student’s feedback comments were very positive. Course was informative, engaging, well
organised and made good use of clinical case studies.
Some repetition was reported with some overlap with the Taught Course; however students
believed that this only consolidated their learning. Students requested that all lecture notes be
uploaded on to Moodle.
General Medical Specialties (RR 38% Overall score 62% - Mean)
Students commented that the teaching schedule was challenging at times but well organised.
Teaching cancellations were reported (ENT and diabetic foot sessions).
Again, repetition of teaching was reported with some students requesting to move surgery
lectures into the Surgery week.
Surgery (RR 36% Overall score 42% - Mean)
Generally positive feedback.
Repetition was reported with some overlap with other Path week modules (haematology, GI and
breast).
Vertical Modules
Year 1 & 2
Students seemed to genuinely enjoy and appreciate the VM in Years 1 and 2, particularly the
early patient contact, clinical skills sessions, the use of peer tutors, the integrated day and the
excellent skills of their VM tutors.
Years 3 & 4
Feedback was very positive overall.
Year 5
Feedback generally positive. Poor resolution of images used in Case of the Month reported.
11
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.
It is clear from the evaluations that students value the opportunity to study SCCs. They provide
an opportunity to consolidate learning, provide plenty of clinical exposure and learn new skills.
Year 1 SSCs (RR 65%, Overall Rating 77%)
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. The exposure to clinical skills was
valued.
Improvements ... students requested more clarification on assessment criteria.
Year 2 SSCs (RR 47%, Overall Rating 81%)
Feedback was generally very positive. Students appreciated the link between Year 1 and 2
modules. Comments included hands on dissection experience improved my knowledge of
anatomy and the Cognitive Neuroscience SSC linked well with the Neuroscience module. Again,
student valued the specialist visiting lectures.
Year 2 Cardiometabolic Extended Patient Pathway (RR 46%, Overall Rating 22%)
This is the first year the Extended Patient Pathway (EPP) was run. The module received mixed
feedback. Patient contact was a valuable learning experience which helped to improve
communication skills. Many enjoyed the clinical aspects of the module such as taking histories
and some commented that the teaching helped consolidate their knowledge of diabetes and
cardiology.
Students believed that the assessment of a 3000 word essay and a presentation was
disproportionate and time consuming. The timing of the assessments were also problematic in
that many students were under pressure to complete iBSc applications, formatives and revising
for end of year exams.
Improvements ... improve organisation and structure of the module. Many students reported that
tutor allocations changed every week, and that the material covered during teaching was
repetitive and overlapped with vertical module teaching.
Year 3 SSCs (RR 50%, Overall Rating 86%)
Most SSCs very positively evaluated. SSC’s were organised, had clear and achievable learning
outcomes and students valued the terrific range of clinical opportunities.
Year 5 SSCs (RR 49%, Overall Rating 91%)
Excellent feedback received. The Grand Rounds and the TIPs course received particularly
positive comments as did the support and guidance from ACME and the clinical skills staff.
Improvements ... more updated information on clinics requested.
12
10 NHS sites
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).
11 Central Sites
Royal Free
Gen Med Spec
95%
Anaesthetics
40%
Gen Med MiC
87%
Urology
34%
COOP
63%
ENT
38%
Orthopaedics
41%
CHFD
83%
Rheumatology
50%
WHCD
51%
Surgery
22%
Neurology
59%
Student feedback is variable; there were positive evaluations for GenMed Spec, GenMed MiC and
CFHD, whereas feedback for Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, CN and WHCD was mixed. Overall
scores for surgery and related specialties were particularly low.
Some patchy feedback relating to poor organisation for Orthopaedics and Rheumatology teaching.
Many students commented on out-of-date timetables, clashes between O&R sessions and there was
little (if any) bedside teaching of Orthopaedics.
Surgery at Royal Free received consistently poor feedback. Reports of a lack of willingness to teach,
poor timetabling, out-of-date learning material in handbooks and on Moodle, high numbers of
cancelled teaching sessions and not enough consultant-led teaching dominated the student feedback.
The Medical School took measures to improve the student experience including the reallocation of
students to the Whittington and Luton & Dunstable hospitals during the last three blocks of the year.
A high number of cancelled tutorials and requests for improved organisation of tutorials were reported
for WHCD.
UCLH
Gen Med Spec
49%
Anaesthetics
78%
Gen Med MiC
92%
Urology
47%
COOP
94%
ENT
27%
Orthopaedics
61%
CHFD
82%
Rheumatology
95%
WHCD
86%
Surgery
57%
Excellent feedback in many areas especially Gen Med MiC, Rheumatology, COOP, CFHD and
WHCD.
13
In need of improvement.....
ENT – high level of teaching cancellations were reported
Surgery – more consultant-led teaching requested.
Whittington
Gen Med Spec
84%
Anaesthetics
88%
Gen Med MiC
67%
Urology
88%
COOP
84%
ENT
51%
Orthopaedics
30%
CHFD
74%
Rheumatology
68%
WHCD
86%
Surgery
72%
Feedback excellent almost all areas.
In need of improvement..... students reported that the Orthopaedic session was disorganised with
timetable clashes between theatre sessions and morning teaching. Comments indicate a lack of
teaching by consultants and high levels of teaching cancellations.
Surgery – more consultant-led teaching including bedside and ward-based teaching would be
welcomed.
12 Year 4 and 5 DGH Attachments
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 halls is an increasing problem for students
at a number of sites. Accommodation facilities at some sites remain poor.
Barnet
Paediatrics
95%
O&G
76%
Medicine
77%
Surgery
68%
A&E
68%
Student feedback was very positive. Staff were supportive and friendly especially Foundation (FY)
doctors who were enthusiastic and keen to teach. Students rated consultant-led bedside teaching as
excellent across all modules, although more structured teaching was requested. Final year
pharmacists’ teaching on prescribing was reported as superb.
Administrative support was rated 95% in final year (previously rated 34%). Students praised the
organisation and timetabling.
Commuting from the Chase Farm-based accommodation to Barnet Hospital was problematic, with outof-date shuttle-bus timetables, overcrowding and infrequent (hourly) buses.
Basildon
Paediatrics
76%
O&G
61%
Medicine
85%
Surgery
67%
A&E
94%
Students reported that Basildon provided an excellent teaching environment. The student feedback is
generally good, notably CFHD, Medicine and A&E.
Final year students praised consultant-led teaching and structured teaching from the FY doctors,
particularly the evening teaching. Many thought there were too many sign-offs, not enough patient
contact or encouragement of independent learning. Bedside teaching and opportunities to attend
fracture clinics and theatre were welcomed.
14
Teaching cancellations were reported for Paediatrics and O&G. Students reported that 37% of
planned teaching sessions took place (WHCD). Complaints continue to come in regarding the poor
standard of ill-equipped accommodation.
Chase Farm
Paediatrics
73%
O&G
57%
Medicine
80%
Surgery
90%
A&E
90%
The student feedback is mostly excellent with students reporting that staff were engaging, friendly and
proactive. For Paediatrics and O&G more formal teaching sessions and dedicated tutorial teaching
was requested.
Final year consultant-led teaching in A&E was reported as exceptional.
IT and library facilities were rated negatively. Many students commented on difficulties accessing
library computers out of hours, and some reported insufficient printing facilities in the library.
King George
Paediatrics
92%
O&G
93%
Excellent feedback. Consultant-led teaching and teaching by junior doctors was reported as
exceptional. Some reports of overcrowding for paediatrics teaching, with clinics being shared with
students from Bart’s Medical School.
There is no Final Year teaching on this site.
Lister
Paediatrics
59%
O&G
67%
Medicine
100%
Surgery
100%
A&E
57%
Student feedback is generally good. F1/F2 teaching highly praised. More timetabled teaching would
be welcomed.
Students praised the high level of clinical exposure in O&G, although many male students
experienced difficulty gaining patient consent to observe vaginal births.
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
94%
O&G
74%
Medicine
100%
Surgery
88%
A&E
86%
Students rate this attachment as excellent. Teaching by consultants, registrars, junior doctors and
clinicians was highly valued and many appreciated the flexibility to attend a variety of clinics. Practical
Prescribing course (final year) was highly praised.
Recommendation from final year students.... to disseminate information about the Clinical Skills Lab.
Accommodation and IT/library facilities excellent. Internet access in accommodation was fitted midsession.
15
North Middlesex
Paediatrics
86%
O&G
95%
Medicine
82%
Surgery
70%
A&E
65%
Excellent student feedback. Final year attachments have also seen significant improvements (ratings
last year – 66%, 60% and 60%). Students valued teaching by consultants, registrars, junior doctors
and clinicians.
For O&G, 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 (Grenada).
More guidance for male students undertaking intimate examinations was requested.
Wifi was requested in accommodation block.
QEII
Paediatrics
100% (n=1)
*No student evaluation data available from Final Year Questionnaire
National Hospital for Neurology & Neurosurgery
Neurology
87%
Teaching was highly praised and students reported that Queen Square provided an excellent learning
experience. Feedback about the organisation and administrative support was positive; many valued
the self-directed approach to the timetable.
Teaching by consultants and registrars was highly commended, as was bedside teaching. Students
appreciated the exposure to a wide variety of conditions.
Watford
Paediatrics
86%
O&G
78%
Medicine
84%
Surgery
81%
A&E
67%
Final Year student feedback is excellent. Teaching from a wide variety of educators was praised. What
do you mean by this? Ward-based teaching was commended.
Students reported difficulty observing births as delivery wards were shared with midwifery students.
More bedside teaching requested.
16