http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1845-2887
Figures
Abstract
Background
Basic medical skills such as history taking and physical examination are essential components of clinical work profiles, but nevertheless have been neglected by conventional preclinical curricula. The near-peer-teaching program AaLplus [living anatomy plus] teaches basic medical skills, especially history taking, physical examination, and venepuncture, to preclinical students. It is a highly popular compulsory course in the first four semesters (320 students/year, 9h/semester) at Heidelberg University and ends with a formative Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) during which students receive structured in-depth feedback on their performance. AaLplus is part of the Department of General Practice’s longitudinal curriculum for Family Medicine.
Objectives
This study aims to assess whether the AaLplus program has positive effects on students’ clinical skill development and subjective confidence in history taking, physical examination and venepuncture.
Methods
From 2015 to 2019, we asked all AaLplus participants to rate the program and self-assess their medical skills on 5-point Likert scales (min 1, max 5). In 4-station OSCEs, trained tutors rated the students’ performance in all taught skills using standardized checklists.
Results
From 2015 to 2019 n = 1534 questionnaires returned (response rate = 98.6%, 52.7% females). After course completion, students felt able to take a patient’s history (mean 3.97, SD = 0.75) and perform physical examinations (means range 3.82–4.36, SDs range 0.74–0.89) as well as venepuncture (mean 4.12, SD = 0.88). A large majority of students claimed they acquired these skills in the AaLplus program. During OSCE, 81.9% passed anamnesis, 93.1% passed physical examination, and 95.4% passed venepuncture (of n = 1556). Students mostly rated the feedback they received during the OSCE as “helpful” or “very helpful” (means for different stations 4.69–4.76, SDs 0.50–0.70).
Conclusions
AaLplus is a positive example of a peer teaching program in the preclinical stage of medical studies. It successfully trains junior students in essential medical abilities and increases their confidence in their skills. A high percentage of students pass the formative OSCE and evaluate it positively. Consistently high ratings indicate the program’s routine viability. Further studies are needed to analyze if programs like AaLplus could have an impact on the number of graduates choosing career in Family Medicine.
Citation: Schwill S, Hundertmark J, Fahrbach-Veeser J, Eicher C, Tonchev P, Kurczyk S, et al. (2020) The AaLplus near-peer teaching program in Family Medicine strengthens basic medical skills—A five-year retrospective study. PLoS ONE 15(5): e0233748. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233748
Editor: Samy A. Azer, King Saud University, SAUDI ARABIA
Received: October 18, 2019; Accepted: May 8, 2020; Published: May 29, 2020
Copyright: © 2020 Schwill et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The authors received no individual funding. The AaLplus program is part of the regular curriculum for medical students at the Department of General Practice and Health Services Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Germany. The Ministry of Science, Research and Art Baden-Württemberg financially supports the program as part of the project on “Promoting early clinical competence-oriented teaching according to the Aalplus-program”. We acknowledge financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft within the Open Access Publishing funding program, by the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts and by Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors of this study have read the journal's policy and have the following competing interests: All authors are involved in the AaLplus program. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products associated with this research to declare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Background
Medical training needs to convey the broad set of skills and knowledge necessary for future physicians to autonomously and responsibly carry on their profession. Some basic medical skills, such as taking a patient’s history and physical examination, are essential components of most clinical work profiles [1, 2]. However, conventional medical curricula have been shown to result in unsatisfactory basic medical skills upon completion of medical school [3–5]. Moreover, medical students and graduates generally do not feel adequately prepared for their work in terms of communicational and clinical-practical skills [6], even though they enjoy initial examinations without diagnostic appliances and seek more “hands-on” contact to patients [7]. Therefore, curricula reforms worldwide aim to strengthen generalist training and improve the integration of basic medical skills [8–13], one notable example being the 2015 German National Competence-Based Catalogue of Learning Objectives in Medicine [14]. This is especially important for doctors specializing in Family Medicine, where communication skills and physical examination skills are highly necessary [15–17].
Effective teaching of basic medical skills requires small teaching groups for individual practice [18], which puts high financial and organizational demands on faculty staff. One feasible and cost-efficient is peer assisted learning (PAL), also known as (near-)peer tutoring or (near-)peer teaching [19–21]. In PAL, more experienced students (tutors) educate the younger and less experienced ones (tutees). Various studies show that tutors are able to convey skills and knowledge as effectively as faculty staff [22–24]. Further recognized benefits of using peers as teachers include cognitive, social, and economic benefits, as well as the acquisition of teaching, organizational, and interpersonal competencies for peer tutors themselves [20, 25–28]. In general, peer-teaching is well established in health professions, especially in nursing education [29, 30]. However, literature supporting formal and long-term integration of near-peer-teaching programs into medical curricula is limited.
To meet the given demand concerning medical students’ practical skill acquisition, the PAL program AaLplus (living anatomy plus [Anatomie am Lebenden plus]) was established by an interdisciplinary team at Heidelberg University in 2011. Since then, it has been operated by the Department of General Practice and Health Services Research [31] and undergone continuous evaluation and further development.
The purpose of this study is to a) assess the AaLplus program’s effects on students‘ abilities and subjective confidence in practical medical skills, b) ensure whether students‘ practical medical skills level is sufficient to advance to the clinical stage of medical studies, and c) monitor the long-term success of the near-peer teaching program in real-life conditions, i.e., maintained in broad application after the program’s pilot phase. We further discuss the program concept as a viable approach to teaching practical medical skills within a longitudinal Family Medicine curriculum. Based on positive impressions and informal feedback we received as university lecturers and medical educators, we hypothesize a positive effect on students‘ skill and confidence development. Furthermore, we expect sufficiently high pass rates and consistently positive student ratings.
Methods
The AaLplus program
In Heidelberg, the 6-year long medical curriculum, HeiCuMed (Heidelberger Curriculum Medicinale), is divided into two preclinical and four clinical years and is attended by 320 students per year. AaLplus is a mandatory subject for all students within the preclinical stage. It is embedded in a longitudinal curriculum for family medicine organized by the Department of General Practice and Health Services Research. The program’s main goal is to ensure basic medical abilities in history taking, physical examination, and practical skills for all medical students by the end of the second year. Its strong emphasis on clinical practice contrasts other, predominantly theoretical subjects in the first two years of medical school, such as anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry. In total, AaLplus encompasses 30 hours within two years, with five to six sessions of one to two hours duration in two subsequent weeks each semester. The courses take place in the evening and are aligned with contents and schedules of other curricular blocks, including Medical Psychology lectures, Introduction to Careers in Medicine, and two mandatory one-day visitations in general practice. Additionally, the mandatory clerkship in general practice (four weeks) and the general practice course (two weeks) in the later clinical stage of medical studies directly refer back to AaLplus and the competencies gained within it. Moreover, skills in history taking or physical examinations are required for all upcoming clinical rotations and other clerkships, for example in surgery, internal medicine, or neurology.AaLplus integrates theory, hands-on practice, and tutor feedback in a consecutive curriculum for all four preclinical semesters (Fig 1). To allow for active participation and hands-on practical learning, all session take place in small groups (10 to 12 participants) led by teams of two tutors. In history taking, students learn how to conduct a complete anamnesis within different settings. Lessons are supported by “standardized patients”, semiprofessional actors who take on patient roles specifically designed for educational purposes. Standardized patients present symptoms and biographical information in a standardized way; they are selected, trained and supervised within the MediKIT program (Medizinisches Kommunikations- und Interaktionstraining [Medical Communication and Interaction Training]) [32, 33] on a regular basis to ensure an authentic performance and high-quality feedback to students. In physical examination lessons, students first receive brief theoretical introductions to then practice examination techniques on each other with the help of standardized checklists (published as the Heidelberg Standards of Examination [Heidelberger Standarduntersuchungen]) [34]. Taught techniques encompass examinations of the vertebral column, heart, lungs, liver, and (since 2017) abdomen and thyroid gland, as well as a short neurological examination (since 2018). Practical skills, including hand disinfection, venepuncture, and blood pressure measurement, are taught on dummies and, on a voluntary basis after written informed consent, on one another. Students further practice the problem-based learning approach with different case vignettes every year.
Flowchart of student/tutor responsibilities and program organization, including the four-semester curriculum. PBL = Problem-based learning.
In the end of the 4th preclinical semester, AaLplus ends with a compulsory but unmarked (formative) OSCE with four OSCE-stations (history taking, two clinical examinations, and venepuncture), which was first established in 2013. Rotation time was 5 min for the examination, 3 min for peer feedback and 1 additional minute for the change to the next station. The assessors used a 25-item standardized checklist for scoring, which was either paper-based (2015) or tablet-computer-based (2016 to 2019).
Peer tutors
All courses within the AaLplus program as well as the yearly final OSCE are held by trained peer tutors under supervision by medical staff. The tutors follow a preset thematic structure but autonomously prepare study material, revise and present course content, answer participants’ questions, give feedback, facilitate practice phases, and handle group dynamics. They teach their younger peers in teams of two, so that novice tutors are always supported by a senior tutor. Fig 1 also provides an overview on tutor selection and responsibilities. The tutors are medical students of higher clinical semesters who passed a rigorous selection process based on grades, previous clinical experience, and motivation. In 2018, there were 101 applicants for 21 positions. Before being allowed to teach, new tutors have to complete 40 to 50 hours of preparatory training, in which they acquire general teaching and facilitation skills, team leadership and communication techniques. Special emphasis is put on tutors’ abilities to provide structured and high-quality feedback to learners, both in regular AaLplus sessions and in OSCEs. Adding to this, tutors have to pass specific trainings in problem-based learning as well as clinical examinations of heart, lungs, and abdomen every year. These trainings are conducted by educational professionals, general practitioners, and psychologists. These faculty staff members also join in lessons and OSCEs on a regular basis for the purpose of supervising tutors and standardized patients.
In OSCEs, tutors serve as assessors, using standardized checklists for rating and subsequently giving in-depth feedback to examinees [35]. Checklist points include details of history taking (e.g., inquiry into factors aggravating and alleviating pain) or the respective examinations technique (e.g., auscultation locations) and aspects of communicational behavior (e.g., friendliness, empathy). In their feedback to examinees, tutors point out both completed and missing checklist points and furthermore give proposals for improvement. Due to time constraints, standardized patients do not give feedback to examinees.The program has reached a high degree of self-management. A selected team of experienced, highly motivated tutors is involved in the organization and development of course materials, OSCE logistics, and the selection and training of new peer tutors.
Study design
Data collection and outcome measures.
The study was conducted at the Faculty of Medicine at Heidelberg University, Germany. At the end of the academic years of 2015 to 2019, all fourth semester students were invited to participate in a survey. As all data were acquired during a routine, anonymous course-evaluation in medical school, no additional ethics approval was required (Ethics committee of the University of Heidelberg).
Directly after the AaLplus OSCE, all participants completed a 5-minute evaluation sheet, including sociodemographic data and a self-assessment of medical skills. We used a 25-item questionnaire with sociodemographic questions and 5-point Likert scales (1 = not confident at all, 2 = not confident, 3 = balanced, 4 = confident, 5 = absolutely confident). Tutors assessed the participants’ OSCE performance using checklists with up to 25 points. 18 points were required to pass, 20 points were counted as a ‘fair’ result, 22 as ‘good’, 24 as ‘very good’. However, since 2017, assessment for physical examinations was extended to two stations and we used a 30-points anamnesis scale in 2017 and 2018. Therefore, we transformed OSCE ratings to score percentages with 72% required to pass. Some evaluation and skill rating questions were only assessed in later years. Furthermore, to evaluate the consistency of students’ ratings and OSCE scores, we calculated intraclass correlations (ICC), defined as the ratio of between-cohort variance to total variance.
Results
Participants
Overall, 1534 out of 1556 second-year medical students participating in the OSCE completed the evaluation (response-rate 98.6%, Table 1). Sociodemographic data was available for 92.1% (n = 1413) of participants. Mean age was 22.2 years (SD = 3.49) and 52.7% (n = 745) were female. Overall, 29.4% (n = 415) of students had experienced previous professional training, for instance as medical technical assistants, registered nurses, paramedics or through academic studies. Some medical abilities were only assessed in later years (e.g. pulse measurement or physical examination of the abdomen from 2017 on). In 2016, we asked participants to evaluate via email, which lead to a lower data return. From 2017 on, participant evaluated on site using tablet computers.
Self-assessment of basic medical skills
Participants assessed their own medical skills on a 5-point Likert scale (Table 2). After participation in AaLplus, the majority of peer-tutees felt confident in taking a patient’s history in a structured manner (total mean 3.97, SD = 0.75, n = 1405). Participants felt highly confident that they could perform basic medical skills correctly (total mean hand disinfection 4.57, SD = 0.73, n = 1394; total mean blood pressure measurement 4.61, SD = 0.70, n = 1405; total mean venepuncture 4.12, SD = 0.88, n = 1400; total mean pulse measurement 4.31, SD = 0.79, n = 921). When asked about their physical examination abilities, participants were mostly confident (total mean vertebral column 3.82, SD = 0.84, n = 1405; total mean heart 3.82, SD = 0.83, n = 1391; total mean liver 3.91, SD = 0.82, n = 1403; total mean lungs 3.85, SD = 0.78, n = 1391; total mean thyroid gland 3.82, SD = 0.89, n = 1393; total mean abdomen 4.28, SD = 0.74, n = 911; total mean appendicitis signs 4.36, SD = 0.82, n = 915; total mean lymph nodes 4.03, SD = 0.83, n = 918; total mean neurological examination 4.12, SD = 0.81, n = 619). The high consistency of students' ratings between cohorts is visible in the means shown in Table 2 and further indicated by low ICCs, ranging from < .001 in neurological examination ratings to .063 for vertebral column ratings, mean .025, SD = .023. Table 2 further shows a high consistency between cohorts.
Skill acquisition through AaLplus
We asked all participants whether they had learned the respective medical skills within the AaLplus program or elsewhere (Table 2). On average, 90.3% (of n = 1391) reported that they had learned to perform a structured anamnesis through AaLplus. More than half of the all participants reported this to be the case for hand disinfection (56.8% of n = 1383), less than half for blood pressure measurement (44.8% of n = 1371), and 73.7% (of n = 1382) of participants for venepuncture. Physical examination skills participants had were almost entirely acquired in the AaLplus program (ranging from 91.0% for appendicitis signs to 98.5% for the thyroid gland).
OSCE results
OSCE ratings were available for 1556 students (Table 3). In the ‘anamnesis’ OSCE-station, participants achieved a mean score of 79.4% (SD = 9.9) and 81.9% of students passed. In the ‘venepuncture’ station, the mean score was 87.1% (SD = 9.7) and 95.4% of students passed. In ‘physical examination’, students achieved a mean score of 87.1% (SD = 9.7) and 93.3% passed. Students’ total OSCE score was 84.0% (SD = 9.1) and 74.8% passed. To pass the OSCE as a whole, students had to pass all three stations successfully. OSCE performance of different cohorts did not vary substantially, with ICCs of.045 for anamnesis, .028 for venepuncture, and .067 for physical examination, mean ICC = .047.
OSCE evaluation
Participants used 5-point Likert scales (1 = not agree at all, 2 = disagree, 3 = balanced, 4 = agree, 5 = absolutely agree), similar to their self-assessment, to evaluate selected aspects of the OSCE. In general, participants were highly satisfied with their tutors’ performance as OSCE assessors (mean 4.90, SD = 0.37, n = 619). They rated the feedback they received after the OSCE stations as “very helpful” (anamnesis mean 4.76, SD = 0.50, n = 1231; venepuncture mean 4.74, SD = 0.60, n = 1233; physical examination mean 4.69, SD = 0.70, n = 1204). Altogether, students individual subjective learning progress during the OSCE was high (mean 4.33, SD = 0.72, n = 616).
Discussion
In this study we demonstrated that the near-peer teaching-program AaLplus — embedded in a longitudinal curriculum of Family Medicine — supports the basic medical skill acquisition of junior medical students. After our two years curriculum, participants felt confident to take a patient’s history in a structured manner, perform important basic medical skills, and complete various relevant basic physical examinations. A large majority states to have learned these skills within the program, with the exception of two skills (hand disinfection and blood pressure measurement), which half of the participants had learned elsewhere. In accordance with their high subjective confidence, about three quarters of all participants successfully passed the (formative) OSCE, even though students faced no negative consequence from failing. Pass rates of individual OSCE stations were even higher. The mean score for anamnesis was slightly lower than for basic skills or physical examination, possibly reflecting the fact that taking a patient’s complete history is more difficult to learn. Both self-assessed basic medical skills and OSCE results were consistent across cohorts. Moreover, participants’ evaluation of feedback received during the OSCE states that their skills even improved through this feedback.
Taken together, participants’ consistently high average confidence in various basic medical abilities, their good pass rates in the OSCE, and their high satisfaction with AaLplus as a whole and with the tutors’ performance as assessors are further indicators of students’ preparedness for their subsequent clinical study stage as well as the program’s success and viability.
Prior research has been shown that early practice of basic medical skills is beneficial for medical students’ professional development [8, 10, 36, 37]. In HeiCuMed, the two preclinical years’ study focus is anatomy, biochemistry, medical psychology, physiology, and basics of other sciences. Therefore, AaLplus (together with two one-day visitations in general practice) offers a welcome opportunity to connect theoretical knowledge (e.g. classical anatomy or physician-patient communication models) and practice (physical examination and history taking), with positive results in line with prior research [38, 39].
Qualitative feedback from our program indicates that the hands-on experience and the insights into clinical routine within AaLplus help to improve participants’ motivation the first years of medical school and strengthens their self-confidence. The extents of basic medical skill training in medical schools vary widely between countries. While practical medical experience forms an integral part of medical curricula in Anglo-Saxon or Scandinavian countries [11, 12, 40, 41], this is not the case for other countries [42, 43]. Our research is in line with other studies which report positive effects of early practical medical experience not only in diverse medical abilities, but also in student’s interest and motivation to further improve their practical skills throughout their time in medical school [44–46].
These positive effects are likely to be even more pronounced for AaLplus peer tutors. From an educational perspective, tutors are given the tools and experience to become effective teachers [25–27, 35, 47, 48] and benefit in many further ways from their experience. Their close contact and high engagement with the Department of Family Medicine’s staff, for instance in trainings, supervisions, or self-management teams, may even strengthen their interest in Family Medicine as a future career choice.
Another problem common during clinical rotations, when medical student start treating patients, is “trial and error” learning on patients [49, 50], potentially leading to hazardous situations. This can be mitigated by ensuring first skill experience in a simulation-based environment [51]. AaLplus, as a program strengthening students’ basic medical skills, may therefore indirectly contribute to patient-safety and positive physician-patient-relationships.
Taken together, basic medical skills are fundamental for a successful medical career, especially in Family Medicine [16]. A medical student who is well-trained in basic medical skills, effective communication, and diagnosing illness is highly prepared for all aspects of the career as a family physician [16, 52–54]. In combination with further training in evidence based medicine, a well-trained family physician is able to protect patients from risks related to over-diagnosis and conserve the health system’s resources [55]. The AaLplus curriculum plants the seed of success in future family physicians, who can rely on their abilities in basic clinical diagnostics.
Strengths and limitations
The strengths of this study include the large number of participants analyzed over five consecutive years. More than 98% of all students participated, thus providing highly representative data and a valid confirmation of students’ abilities as shown in the OSCE, their reasonably high subjective confidence in clinical skills and their high satisfaction with the AaLplus program.
Course evaluations and self-assessments are, however, potentially biased and do not necessarily imply skill acquisition [56, 57]. Nevertheless, our results demonstrate high degrees of subjective preparedness and perceived self-efficacy for the clinical stage of medical studies, which is one goal of the program [58]. Furthermore, even though students had no pressure to succeed in the OSCE, pass rates are relatively high (74.8%), indicating that substantial learning indeed took place within the program.
Unfortunately, because AaLplus is compulsory for all medical students attending Heidelberg University, it is not possible to form a control group that would allow comparing the program’s effect between participants. Due to small curriculum setup changes from year to year, the validity of direct comparisons between cohorts is limited. Instead, future research could match individual OSCE performance with participants’ evaluation to verify the validity of their self-assessments.
Conclusions
AaLplus, a near-peer teaching program under the Department of General Practice and Health Services’ supervision, strengthens junior medical students’ abilities in history taking, physical examination, and practical skills — crucial elements of many clinical work profiles, especially in Family Medicine. Students achieve reasonably high scores in the formative OSCE by the end of their second year. Furthermore, they report high subjective confidence in their abilities and are highly satisfied with feedback received in the OSCE. Five-year data show consistency in all ratings, indicating the program’s routine viability. Further studies are needed to explore if early and positive contact with basic medical ability trainings and Family Medicine within a longitudinal curriculum can impact the number of graduates choosing a career in Family Medicine.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank all professional trainers as well as all peer-tutors engaged in the AaLplus-program for their great work. We highly appreciate the help of Caitlin Walsh for editing the language of the draft. Furthermore, we are very thankful for a supportive interdisciplinary work at medical faculty of Heidelberg. Finally, we highly appreciate the help of Merle Brunnée, Jürgen Krause, and Sonja Rettenmaier coordinating the AaLplus-program and the initiative support in 2013–2015 of Nadja Koehl-Hackert, Katja Goetz, and David Pfisterer.
Previous presentations
Part of data was presented at the annual meeting of the German Society for General Practice and Family Medicine in September 2017 in Düsseldorf, Germany. Conference proceedings were limited to online publications of presentations abstracts. Another part of data (student feedback on assessors’ performance in 2016 and 2017) was published in Schwill et al., 2020 [35].
References
- 1. Jolly B, Macdonald M. Education for practice: the role of practical experience in undergraduate and general clinical training. Med Educ. 1989;23(2):189–95.
- 2.
General Medical Council Education Committee. Tomorrow's doctors: recommendations on undergraduate medical education. London: General Medical Council; 1993.
- 3. Remmen ROY. Unsatisfactory basic skills performance by students in traditional medical curricula. Med Teach. 1998;20(6):579–82.
- 4. Mangione S, Peitzman SJ, Gracely E, Nieman LZ. Creation and assessment of a structured review course in physical diagnosis for medical residents. J Gen Intern Med. 1994;9(4):213–8.
- 5. Platt FW, McMath JC. Clinical Hypocompetence: The Interview. Ann Intern Med. 1979;91(6):898–902.
- 6. Federkeil G. CHE Alumni-Ranking Medizin–Ergebnisse einer vergleichenden Absolventenbefragung Humanmedizin. Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung. 2004;Arbeitspapier 57:1–34.
- 7. McGee SR, Irby DM. Teaching in the outpatient clinic: Practical tips. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12(Suppl 2):S34–S40.
- 8. Remmen ROY, Scherpbier AJJA, Van Der Vleuten CPM, Denekens J, Derese A, Hermann I, et al. Effectiveness of basic clinical skills training programmes: a cross‐sectional comparison of four medical schools. Med Educ. 2001;35(2):121–8.
- 9. Kneebone R, Kidd J, Nestel D, Asvall S, Paraskeva P, Darzi A. An innovative model for teaching and learning clinical procedures. Med Educ. 2002;36(7):628–34.
- 10. Jünger J, Schäfer S, Roth C, Schellberg D, Friedman BDM, Nikendei C. Effects of basic clinical skills training on objective structured clinical examination performance. Med Educ. 2005;39(10):1015–20.
- 11. Jones R, Higgs R, de Angelis C, Prideaux D. Changing face of medical curricula. Lancet. 2001;357(9257):699–703.
- 12. Dahle LO, Brynhildsen J, Fallsberg MB, Rundquist I, Hammar M. Pros and cons of vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a problem-based undergraduate medical curriculum: examples and experiences from Linköping, Sweden. Med Teach. 2002;24(3):280–5.
- 13. Leinster S. Training medical practitioners: which comes first, the generalist or the specialist? J R Soc Med. 2014;107(3):99–102.
- 14.
Medizinischer Fakultätentag der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Nationaler Kompetenzbasierter Lernzielkatalog Medizin (NKLM). Kiel: Medizinischer Fakultätentag; 2015.
- 15. Warnecke E. The art of communication. Aust Fam Physician. 2014;43:156–8.
- 16. Franco CAGdS, Franco RS, Lopes JMC, Severo M, Ferreira MA Clinical communication skills and professionalism education are required from the beginning of medical training—a point of view of family physicians. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):43.
- 17. Oshaug K, Halvorsen PA, Melbye H. Should chest examination be reinstated in the early diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2013;8:369.
- 18. Vogel D, Harendza S. Basic practical skills teaching and learning in undergraduate medical education—a review on methodological evidence. GMS Journal for Medical Education. 2016;33(4):Doc64.
- 19. Ten Cate O, Durning S. Dimensions and psychology of peer teaching in medical education. Med Teach. 2007;29(6):546–52.
- 20. Henning JM, Weidner TG, Marty MC. Peer assisted learning in clinical education: Literature review. Athl Train Educ J. 2008;3(3):84–90.
- 21. Lauter J, Branchereau S, Herzog W, Bugaj TJ, Nikendei C. Tutor-led teaching of procedural skills in the skills lab: Complexity, relevance and teaching competence from the medical teacher, tutor and student perspective. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2017;122:54–60.
- 22. Weyrich P, Celebi N, Schrauth M, Möltner A, Lammerding-Köppel M, Nikendei C. Peer-assisted versus faculty staff-led skills laboratory training: a randomised controlled trial. Med Educ. 2009;43(2):113–20.
- 23. Nikendei C, Andreesen S, Hoffmann K, Jünger J. Cross-year peer tutoring on internal medicine wards: Effects on self-assessed clinical competencies–A group control design study. Med Teach. 2009;31(2):32–5.
- 24. Field M, Burke JM, McAllister D, Lloyd DM. Peer-assisted learning: a novel approach to clinical skills learning for medical students. Med Educ. 2007;41(4):411–8.
- 25. Burgess A, McGregor D, Mellis C. Medical students as peer tutors: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14(1):115.
- 26. Homberg A, Hundertmark J, Krause J, Brunnée M, Neumann B, Loukanova S. Promoting medical competencies through a didactic tutor qualification programme–a qualitative study based on the CanMEDS Physician Competency Framework. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(187).
- 27. Hundertmark J, Alvarez S, Loukanova S, Schultz J-H. Stress and stressors of medical student near-peer tutors during courses: A psychophysiological mixed methods study. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(95).
- 28. Karia C, Anderson E, Hughes A, West J, Lakhani D, Kirtley J, et al. Peer teacher training (PTT) in action. The Clinical Teacher. 2020;17:1–7.
- 29. Irvine S, Williams B, McKenna L. Near-peer teaching in undergraduate nurse education: An integrative review. Nurse Educ Today. 2018;70:60–8.
- 30. Irvine S, Williams B, McKenna L. How are we assessing near-peer teaching in undergraduate health professional education? A systematic review. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;50:42–50.
- 31. Ledig T, Eicher C, Szecsenyi J, Engeser P. AaLplus–ein Anamnese- und Untersuchungskurs für den vorklinischen Studienabschnitt. Z Allgemeinmed. 2014;90(2):76–80.
- 32. Alvarez S, Schultz J-H. Medical educators' perception of communication training with simulated patients: an explorative study approach. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):650–.
- 33. Schultz J-H, Schönemann J, Lauber H, Nikendei C, Herzog W, Jünger J. Einsatz von Simulationspatienten im Kommunikations- und Interaktionstraining für Medizinerinnen und Mediziner (Medi-KIT): Bedarfsanalyse—Training—Perspektiven. Gruppe Interaktion Organisation Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO). 2007;38(1):7–23.
- 34. Nikendei C, Ganschow P, Groener JB, Huwendiek S, Köchel A, Köhl-Hackert N, et al. “Heidelberg standard examination” and “Heidelberg standard procedures”–Development of faculty-wide standards for physical examination techniques and clinical procedures in undergraduate medical education. GMS Journal for Medical Education. 2016;33(4):Doc54.
- 35. Schwill S, Fahrbach-Veeser J, Moeltner A, Eicher C, Kurczyk S, Pfisterer D, et al. Peers as OSCE assessors for junior medical students–a review of routine use: a mixed methods study. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):17.
- 36. Wenrich M, Jackson MB, Scherpbier AJ, Wolfhagen IH, Ramsey PG, Goldstein EA. Ready or not? Expectations of faculty and medical students for clinical skills preparation for clerkships. Med Educ Online. 2010;15(1):5295.
- 37. Acharyaa Y, Richards S, Reza T, Shah S, Rao MR, Arja SB. Early introduction of clinical skills on medical school performance. Journal of Medical Education and Informatics. 2017.
- 38. Rodriguez-Paz JM, Kennedy M, Salas E, Wu AW, Sexton JB, Hunt EA, et al. Beyond “see one, do one, teach one”: toward a different training paradigm. Quality and Safety in Health Care. 2009;18(1):63–8.
- 39. Kotsis SV, Chung KC. Application of see one, do one, teach one concept in surgical training. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(5):1194.
- 40. Brauer DG, Ferguson KJ. The integrated curriculum in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 96. Med Teach. 2015;37(4):312–22.
- 41. Littlewood S, Ypinazar V, Margolis SA, Scherpbier A, Spencer J, Dornan T. Early practical experience and the social responsiveness of clinical education: systematic review. Br Med J. 2005;331(7513):387–91.
- 42. Snelgrove H, Familiari G, Gallo P, Gaudio E, Lenzi A, Ziparo V, et al. The challenge of reform: 10 years of curricula change in Italian medical schools. Med Teach. 2009;31(12):1047–55.
- 43. Palés J, Cardellach F, Estrach M, Gomar C, Gual A, Pons F, et al. Defining the learning outcomes of graduates from the medical school at the University of Barcelona (Catalonia, Spain). Med Teach. 2004;26(3):239–43.
- 44. Ali NB, Pelletier SR, Shields HM. Innovative curriculum for second-year Harvard-MIT medical students: practicing communication skills with volunteer patients giving immediate feedback. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2017;8:337.
- 45. Jana J, Sybille S, Christiane R, Dieter S, Miriam FBD, Christoph N. Effects of basic clinical skills training on objective structured clinical examination performance. Medical Education. 2005;39(10):1015–20.
- 46. Yang Y-Y, Wang S-J, Yang L-Y, Lirng J-F, Huang C-C, Liang J-F, et al. Effects of a new parallel primary healthcare centre and on-campus training programme on history taking, physical examination skills and medical students' preparedness: a prospective comparative study in Taiwan. BMJ Open. 2017;7(9).
- 47. Burgess A, Clark T, Chapman R, Mellis C. Senior medical students as peer examiners in an OSCE. Med Teach. 2013;35(1):58–62.
- 48. Rees EL, Quinn PJ, Davies B, Fotheringham V. How does peer teaching compare to faculty teaching? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Teach. 2016;38(8):829–37.
- 49. Remmen ROY, Denekens J, Scherpbier AJJA, Hermann I, Van Der Vleuten CPM, Van Royen P, et al. An evaluation study of the didactic quality of clerkships. Med Educ. 2000;34(6):460–4.
- 50. Remmen ROY, Denekens J, Scherpbier AJJA, Van Der Vleuten CPM, Hermann I, Van Puymbroeck H, et al. Evaluation of skills during clerkships u focus groups training sing student. Med Teach. 1998;20(5):428–32.
- 51. Brydges R, Hatala R, Zendejas B, Erwin PJ, Cook DA. Linking simulation-based educational assessments and patient-related outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Med. 2015;90(2):246–56.
- 52. Belasen AR, Belasen AT. Dual effects of improving doctor-patient communication: Patient satisfaction and hospital ratings. 2018.
- 53. Chenot J-F, Simmenroth-Nayda A, Koch A, Fischer T, Scherer M, Emmert B, et al. Can student tutors act as examiners in an objective structured clinical examination? Med Educ. 2007;41(11):1032–8.
- 54.
Frank JR, Snell L, Sherbino J, editors. CanMEDS 2015 Physician Competency Framework. Ottawa: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; 2015.
- 55. Naji L, Randhawa H, Sohani Z, Dennis B, Lautenbach D, Kavanagh O, et al. Digital rectal examination for prostate cancer screening in primary care: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Annals of Family Medicine. 2018;16(2):149–54.
- 56. Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M, Van Harrison R, Thorpe KE, Perrier L. Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: A systematic review. J Am Med Assoc. 2006;296(9):1094–102.
- 57. Colthart I, Bagnall G, Evans A, Allbutt H, Haig A, Illing J, et al. The effectiveness of self-assessment on the identification of learner needs, learner activity, and impact on clinical practice: BEME Guide no. 10. Med Teach. 2008;30(2):124–45.
- 58. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191–215.