Does peer feedback for teaching GPs improve student evaluation of general practice attachments? A pre-post analysis

Objectives: The extent of university teaching in general practice is increasing and is in part realised with attachments in resident general practices. The selection and quality management of these teaching practices pose challenges for general practice institutes; appropriate instruments are required. The question of the present study is whether the student evaluation of an attachment in previously poorly evaluated practices improves after teaching physicians have received feedback from a colleague.Methods: Students in study years 1, 2, 3 and 5 evaluated their experiences in general practice attachments with two 4-point items (professional competence and recommendation for other students). Particularly poorly evaluated teaching practices were identified. A practising physician with experience in teaching and research conducted a personal feedback of the evaluation results with these (peer feedback), mainly in the form of individual discussions in the practice (peer visit). After this intervention, further attachments took place in these practices. The influence of the intervention (pre/post) on student evaluations was calculated in generalised estimating equations (cluster variable practice).Results: Of 264 teaching practices, 83 had a suboptimal rating. Of these, 27 practices with particularly negative ratings were selected for the intervention, of which 24 got the intervention so far. There were no post-evaluations for 5 of these practices, so that data from 19 practices (n=9 male teaching physicians, n=10 female teaching physicians) were included in the present evaluation. The evaluations of these practices were significantly more positive after the intervention (by n=78 students) than before (by n=82 students): odds ratio 1.20 (95% confidence interval 1.10-1.31; p<.001).Conclusion: The results suggest that university institutes of general practice can improve student evaluation of their teaching practices via individual collegial feedback.

Abstract licence: CC BY

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.