Comparison of the effectiveness of exclusively facilitated clinical teaching as an alternative to traditional practice-based primary care placements.

Abstract

Introduction: COVID-19 presented major challenges to undergraduate GP placement capacity and there was an increased reliance on clinical training using facilitated simulation. The authors present a novel comparison of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of delivering a one-week primary care course using entirely GP-facilitated clinical teaching outside the GP setting against traditional practice-based GP clinical education.

Methods: A one-week GP placement was redeveloped from a traditional teaching model (TT-M) to an exclusively facilitated teaching model (FT-M) delivered outside the GP practice setting, using principles of blended learning, flipped classroom methods, e-learning and simulation. Both teaching models, delivered in different locations during 2022 to pre-clinical students, were evaluated using student feedback surveys for attainment of learning outcomes and course satisfaction.

Results: The students reported their consultation skills and clinical knowledge (amalgamated mean score 4.36 for FT-M versus 4.63 for TT-M; P = 0.05), as well as preparation for the clinical phases (mean scores 4.35 for FT-M versus 4.41 for TT-M; P = 0.68), were well developed and similar for both courses. Students reported similar enjoyment across both teaching models (FT-M mean score 4.31 versus 4.41 for TT-M; P = 0.49). The costs for delivering teaching per 4-h session for 100 students were £1,379 and £5,551 for FT-M and TT-M, respectively.

Conclusion: Delivery of a one-week primary care attachment to third year medical students using an FT-M was similarly effective and more cost effective than delivering it by a TT-M. FT-M potentially offers an important adjunct to clinical learning and resilience to capacity challenges for GP placements.