Programme no. 526-OP
Professional Development
Development and evaluation of undergraduate medical education – A seventeen year follow-up in Estonia
Alar Sepp*1
1Chair of Pharmacy,Tallinn Health Care College,Tallinn,Estonia
* = Presenting author
Objectives: Our study examines how the hospital doctors and general practitioners (family doctors) trained according to the EU directives and graduated in 1997-2006 evaluated their undergraduate medical education in 2011.
Background: The minority of physicians working in health care in Estonia has trained at the time after Estonia declared independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. The physician’s professional identity has changed together with the changes in Estonian society.
Results: The respondents were satisfied with the teaching and training they had had for hospital work, and primary health care work. The doctors in hospitals and primary health care practice (family doctors) feel shortage in issues of rehabilitation, social medicine, multi-professional cooperation, and administration and planning. Opinions of general practitioners did not differ from the ones of hospital doctors.
Material/Methods:

We used cross-sectional study with a web questionnaire. Altogether 1802 physicians were questioned in 1995 (graduated in 1982-1991), 2563 physicians (graduated in 1982-1996) and 457 family doctors in 2000 and 1025 physicians in 2005 (graduated 1982-2001) and 891 physicians in 2011 (graduated in 1997-2006). The response rates were 64%, 68%, 73%, 64%, and 64,5%, respectively. We used a five-step Likert scale for evaluation the undergraduate medical education and other 60 specific undergraduate education items.

Conclusion: The physician’s point of view is important when we are thinking how to develop medical school curriculum to be better corresponded with many important areas of doctor’s everyday work.
Points for discussion: 1) Strengths and weaknesses of the seventeen year follow-up study

2) Correspondence of undergraduate medical education to the tasks of young physicians

3) How to develop medical school curricula concerning non-clinical issues?