The Conversion of a Peer Teaching Course in the Puncture of Peripheral Veins for Medical Students into an Interprofessional Course.

OBJECTIVE: There is a great interest on both a national and international level in promoting cooperation between different occupational groups within the healthcare professions through interprofessional education (IPE) [1], [2], [3]. Within this project, a peer teaching course on the puncture of peripheral veins was therefore converted from a course for medical students into an IPE learning unit. Students from different occupational groups were to learn within the context of this course, according to the definition from the World Health Organisation (WHO), with and from each other [1]. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This course constituted a small group class in the peer teaching format. The didactic principle was based on the idea that the students were to practice the respective practical skills in pairs and give each other reciprocal feedback. Together with the Department for Health at the Bern University of Applied Sciences (BUAS) and the Bern Center of Higher Education of Nusing (BCHEN), the course, which was conducted by the Institute of Medical Education at the University of Bern (IME), was converted into a voluntary IPE pilot project. Students from all three institutions were represented in terms of participants as well as tutors. RESULTS: The course was evaluated very positively by participants, peer tutors and the participating institutions. By means of an OSCE, it could be proven that the course content had been successfully imparted. On the basis of these results, it was determined that the course should be compulsory in the future for students at all three institutions. DISCUSSION: The evaluation results show the successful conversion of the course into an IPE format within the context of the pilot project. The interactive format of the course created the prerequisite that the students from different professional groups learned with and from each other in actuality, and did not just study the same objectives at the same time as with multiprofessional learning. Cooperation between the three institutions is a cornerstone for the development of a research structure which may examine the effect of IPE in the future.

The effects of anonymity on student ratings of teaching and course quality in a bachelor degree programme.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Are there any clear differences between the outcomes of anonymous and personalised student evaluations of teaching quality? METHODS: During a two-year period students were randomly divided into two separate groups, "anonymous" and "personalised", for end-of-module evaluations. The quality of the module was assessed using a standardised questionnaire. Additionally, students were given the option to add "further comments" if they wanted to highlight specifics. These optional comments were independently assessed by three people, using a five-dimensional rating instrument: positive/negative; differentiated/absolute; naming a person/general; containing an order/neutral; visually accentuated/blank. The database consisted of 615 evaluation forms, of which 306 were completed anonymously. In order to identify whether there were any differences between the anonymous and personalised data, a multivariate variance analysis was performed. Based on the scale, the answers to the questions and the quality of the comments were evaluated. Furthermore, an assessment was made to determine if there were any differences in the number of optional comments between the two groups. RESULTS: No significant differences were identified in the informative quality of data between the anonymous and personalised student evaluations. However, students in the personalised group had a tendency to include more details in their written answers. CONCLUSION: Personalised evaluations do not generate more biased results in terms of social desirability, as long as the evaluation concept is characterised by a closed-circle process and is transparent. In other words, it is imperative that the outcomes of the evaluation are reported back to the students. Moreover, there has to be an opportunity for students to discuss any further suggestions and/or future desires in an open environment. In this way the students respect and understand that their feedback is being taken seriously; consequently, they feel able to provide a constructive and honest evaluation.