Undergraduate medical training: students' perspective and medical school policy

OBJECTIVES: Student attendance to lectures in French medical schools is often poor. We surveyed undergraduate medical students in our medical school, repeating a similar survey conducted ten years earlier. The results are presented with the conclusions of the faculty seminar that followed this survey. METHODS: A closed item questionnaire was distributed in June, 1998, through the hospital wards where the students were posted. After two reminders, the final response rate was 71% (247/348). RESULTS: Overall, 71% of the students declared that they never, or only occasionally, attended lectures in the medical school. Reasons included lack of time (75%), the curriculum diverging from the program of the selective examination that gives access to graduate specialization programs (59%), or insufficient practical clinical content (36%); 46% believed that this teaching prepared them to practice family medicine (11% some specialy), and 92% that the way it was organized was not compatible with preparing for the selective examination. On the other hand, 75% of the students in the final two years of the curriculum declared that attending regularly special preparation seminars for the selective examination, to succeed at this test (91%), but also to prepare for family practice (25%). Respectively 75%, 68% and 66% declared that undergraduate medical courses should, ideally, prepare them for the selective examination, but also for the practice of family medicine, and for graduate medical education. CONCLUSIONS: These results echoed the difficulties of the faculty of the medical school to reconcile preparing students both for their future medical practice and for the selective examination. Two working groups were asked to identify independently appropriate educational objectives according to each perspective. their conclusions appeared to be quite compatible. Based on these conclusions, institutional objectives were ratified to guide the educational policy of our medical school, including the following. to reinforce the consistency and progressiveness of the curriculum; to promote active and autonomous student learning approaches; to develop faculty teaching skills, curriculum evaluation and recognition of teaching activities. (C) 2000, Masson, Paris.