ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: From 2012 to 2015, two Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and two Departments of Pediatrics at the University of Copenhagen implemented an English medium international project. The project allowed international students to work in pairs with local Danish speaking students in a clinical setting. The student cohort was supported by Danish doctors who were responsible for student-pair supervision in English and, ultimately, patient care. Drawing on survey responses of 113 Danish doctors, this study considers the doctors' overall evaluation of the program and their perception of the international students' knowledge, skills and attitudes compared with local students. RESULTS: The Danish doctors rated the international and local students comparable in respect to professional commitment (p = 0.347), academic level (p = 0.134), and English proficiency (p = 0.080). The Danish doctors rated the international students significantly lower than the local students regarding communication with Danish doctors, other hospital staff, and patients (p < 0.001 in all cases). Ninety percent of the doctors involved in the project supported continuing working with internationalization if it included mixed pairs of students and a Danish doctor assigned each day to be exclusively responsible for student supervision. Language barriers for international medical students could be overcome but required substantial faculty support.
Subject(s)
Education, Medical/standards , Hospitals, Public , Hospitals, University , Physicians/statistics & numerical data , Students, Medical/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Clinical Competence/standards , Communication , Denmark , Female , Gynecology/education , Humans , Internationality , Male , Obstetrics/education , Pediatrics/education , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Since 2006, one hospital has offered two clinical courses in obstetrics/gynaecology and paediatrics to international (I) students. However, as I-student enrolment increased, the hospital faced cut-backs. As from 2010, I-team course evaluations therefore dropped to unacceptable levels and more I- than Danish (DK) students failed exams. Therefore, in 2012 we started a three-year internationalisation project (I-project) at two hospitals. The primary intervention was to pair training for I- and DK-students at clinical contact, and to offer an exclusive daily lecturer for I-teams. METHODS: We compared the course evaluations and exam grades of I-teams and DK-teams for two years prior to (107 from I-teams - 211 participants from DK-teams) and during the I-project (245 participants from I-teams - 575 from DK-teams). RESULTS: During the I-project, the I-teams' course evaluations increased to acceptable values and to levels comparable to the evaluation scores of DK-teams. Furthermore, I-students now considered that their communication with the patients was acceptable. Before the I-project, I-students had lower exam grades (median = 10 (range: 0-12)) than DK-students (10 (4-12)) (p = 0.03), but during the I-project, exam grades increased to the levels achieved by DK-students (10 (2-12) - 10 (0-12) (p = 0.22), and no more I- than DK-students failed exams (p = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Pairing students for clinical training and allocating an exclusive lecturer for I-teams produced improved courses for internationalisation. Allocating an exclusive lecturer was associated with a cost of about 615 EUR per student per course when the team consisted of ten students. FUNDING: The Capital Region of Denmark and the University of Copenhagen. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.
