Brian Jolly

The purpose of this paper is to identify the key theoretical and empirical considerations that should underpin effective training for supervisors. Decisions about the content of training courses are complex because there is no appropriate model of supervision in medicine. This paper argues that, in the absence of an explanatory model, effective training for supervisors should be based on existing relevant understandings about learning processes and models of supervision, together with relevant empirical data. It explores some useful models of supervision, considers helpful aspects of theories about learning from experience and identifies some relevant empirical findings to identify some key theoretical and empirical considerations that should underpin effective training for supervisors. This paper offers a framework, derived from both empirical and theoretical work, to guide the content of effective supervision training courses. It does not prescribe structure or organization of training but suggests a basis for devising specific courses for response to local needs.

PURPOSE: To elucidate the link between the quantity and quality of clinical exposure gained by first-year clinical students in hospital settings and their performance on a subsequent comprehensive assessment of clinical skills (the objective structured clinical examination, or OSCE). ...

It is a truth (almost) universally acknowledged that assessment of both postgraduate and undergraduate medical students should be valid, reliable, and fair, but unfortunately it is rarely any of these and never all. Why? Valid means that it tests what we want it to test and ...

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether students acquired clinical skills as well in general practice as in hospital and whether there was any difference in the acquisition of specific skills in the two environments. DESIGN: Randomised crossover trial. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Annual intake of first year clinical students at one medical school. INTERVENTION: A 10 week block of general internal medicine, one half taught in general practice, the other in hospital. Students started at random in one location and crossed over after five weeks. OUTCOME MEASURES: Students' performance in two equivalent nine station objective structured clinical examinations administered at the mid and end points of the block: a direct comparison of the two groups' performance at five weeks; analysis of covariance, using their first examination scores as a covariate, to determine students' relative improvement over the second five weeks of their attachment. RESULTS: 225 students rotated through the block; all took at least one examination and 208 (92%) took both. For the first half of the year there was no significant difference in the students' acquisition of clinical skills in the two environments; later, however, students taught in general practice improved slightly more than those taught in hospital (P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Students can learn clinical skills as well in general practice as in hospital; more work is needed to clarify where specific skills, knowledge, and attitudes are best learnt to allow rational planning of the undergraduate curriculum.