Programme no. 353-P
Evaluation of the post-graduate medical education and training in health centers in Finland
Sari Torkkeli*1, Leena Kuusisto2, Riitta Koskela3, Mika Palvanen4, Doris Holmberg-Marttila5, Elise Kosunen6
1Social and Primary Health Care Services,City of Tampere,Tampere,Finland, 2Centre of General Practice,Pirkanmaa Hospital District,Tampere,Finland, 3Social and Primary Health Care Services,City of Tampere,Tampere,Finland, 4Centre of General Practice,Pirkanmaa Hospital District,Tampere,Finland, 5Centre of General Practice,Pirkanmaa Hospital District,Tampere,Finland, 6School of Medicine,University of Tampere,Tampere,Finland
* = Presenting author
Objectives: Our aim was to evaluate and develop post-graduate medical education and training in health centers in Pirkanmaa Hospital District and within the special responsibility area of Tampere University Hospital.
Background: To become a good GP, a physician has to work in a good team in primary health care. In Finland, both further training in primary health care (EU competence) and GP specialist education include 9 months of training in a health center (HC). It is a task of a regional organization (the Center of General Practice) to support health centers in supervising trainees. This can happen by creating structures for education and by training GP supervisors.
Results: Both doctors in training and HCOs considered health center as a good learning environment (means 8.3 and 8.5, respectively). Both groups responded that conditions for clinical work are good. Arrangements for supervision had improved during follow-up. Trainees have a personal supervisor addressed more often than before (the change during follow-up from 78% to 89%) and working schedule contains more often time for tutoring (62-78%). However, there is room for improvement regarding the contents and planning of supervision. Log book was seldom used as a tool of supervision. One third of the doctors in training felt that they didn’t get enough feedback of their work. The experience has not changed during follow-up. HCOs think that feedback has been given for 90% of trainees. Overall, HCOs have more positive view of the implementation of medical training than trainees.
Material/Methods: We collected two kinds of questionnaire data: data of young doctors in training in 2009-2014 and data of health center organizations in 2012-2013. In the questionnaire there were claims about education in scale 1= totally agree to 4= totally disagree, general judgement of the training environment in school grades (4-10) and open questions. Doctors in training completed the questionnaire after every working episode (392 episodes). We analyzed their responses in two periods: 1.1.2009-31.12.2011 (n=211) and 1.1.2012-31.1.2014 (n=181). Medical directors and GP supervisors (n=30) completed the questionnaire on behalf of HCs.
Conclusion: Structures for supervising doctors in training have become better. In future we have to concentrate more in the utilization of logbook when we train tutors. Also we have pay attention to the assessment and feedback. Results of the questionnaire are dealt with heath centers and we are going to continue the evaluation.
Points for discussion: evaluation of the further training in primary health care , assessment and feedback ,utilization of logbook