Pediatric communication training: A project report on an innovative approach and its effects on student acceptance

Abstract

Aim and backgroundTo elucidate the effects on the results of student evaluation after the revision of pediatric communication training. Students repeatedly rated communication training as moderate, and indicated an insufficient level of preparedness with regard to the medical background of the cases used. Also, tutoring was often perceived as unbalanced between medical and communicative issues associated with the tutor's profession—who was either a resident or a psychologist. In addition, peer role-play was frequently criticized for being used in a case featuring cultural and language barriers. MethodsCommunication training was extensively remodeled. A blended learning concept was introduced with virtual patients in preparation for case-specific medical content, peer role-play was combined with standardized parents, and team teaching by residents and psychologists was introduced to strike a balance in discussions between medical and communicative matters. During the following term, the faculty's standardized evaluation was used to elicit overall rating and particular curricular changes of the communication training; overall ratings were compared to earlier evaluation results. In addition, teaching analysis polls (TAP) were conducted to obtain direct feedback from students about their perceptions of the remodeled training. ResultsThe overall rating of the communication training did not improve after course revision. Items on specific changes implemented in the training received only moderate ratings. In contrast, direct feedback through TAP revealed significant learning effects perceived through the blended approach, peer role-play and standardized parents, and team teaching. However, students made requests to shorten the training duration and expressed controversial opinions on the use of peer role-play and standardized parents. ConclusionsDespite large efforts to improve teaching, evaluation results do not necessarily meet educators’ expectations. If evaluations are more likely to measure acceptance alone among students, improvements in teaching might not be fully communicated to medical educators.