Background: General practice/family medicine (GP/FM) is a distinct academic and clinical discipline centered around comprehensive, continuing and person-centered care. The present study aimed to assess trainees’ perceptions of utility and quality of the principal components of postgraduate GP/FM training in Italy, and to investigate factors associated with these perceptions. Methods: A national survey was conducted by emailing an anonymous self-reported questionnaire to all trainees or doctors who already completed the Italian GP/FM training. Multivariate multiple regression was used to modeling multiple responses to utility and quality of scores (ranging 1–10) of various educational components of GP/FM training, expressing the results as adjusted regression coefficients (aRC) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Results: Cross-regional differences were observed, with lower quality of hospital training rotations perceived by respondents from Friuli Venezia Giulia and 3 Southern regions (Abruzzo, Calabria and Lazio) compared with Lombardy (reference). However, perceived utility and quality of both health district and hospital training were rated lower than general practitioner rotations. Negative scores on both perceived utility and quality of all educational components were consistently expressed by doctors undertaking extra job during the GP/FM training and by those who believed meritocracy was not considered for appointment of seminar teachers. Overall, only a minority (28.17%) of respondents perceived the overall training program as adequately preparing for an independent GP/FM profession, but respondents who answered that the GP/FM training adequately prepares for the job were more likely to provide positive scores on utility and quality of all components of the program. Conclusions: This national survey found substantial cross-regional differences in the educational value of various components of the Italian GP/FM training. GP/FM rotations were consistently perceived as highly useful and characterized by substantial active involvement by trainees. Nevertheless, only a minority of respondents perceived the overall program as adequately preparing for an independent GP/FM profession. These findings may suggest that the educational value of individual rotations may not automatically translate into a perception of coherent and holistic training for the future profession. Future research should complement trainee perceptions with objective assessment of competencies and longitudinal evaluation of preparedness for independent practice.
Ward rounds are a fundamental component of postgraduate medical education, offering authentic clinical contexts for experiential learning and professional socialization, yet evidence suggests substantial variability in teaching quality. This study evaluated foundation doctors’ perceptions of ward round educational opportunities and the factors affecting learning quality, using a cross-sectional mixed-methods survey of foundation doctors at a large UK teaching hospital (January–July 2015). We developed a questionnaire through the literature review, focus groups, pilot testing, and expert review, comprising nine five-point Likert items and three open-ended questions, and invited 33 foundation doctors to participate. Twenty-two trainees responded (66.67%) from general medicine (36.4%), general surgery (27.3%), and six other specialties. Educational ratings ranged from 2.91 to 3.45 out of five; treatment plan clarity scored highest (mean 3.45, SD 0.80) and professional behaviors scored lowest (mean 2.95, SD 0.84). Nineteen respondents (86%) gave free-text comments; thematic analysis, validated through member checking, identified five themes: structured teaching frameworks (73.7%), greater senior engagement (68.4%), protected educational time (57.9%), active junior participation beyond scribing (52.6%), and post-round debriefing (42.1%). Foundation doctors perceive ward rounds as moderately educational with substantial improvement potential; actionable targets include teaching checklists, explicit consultant teaching responsibilities, designated teaching time, active trainee roles, and regular feedback monitoring. Multi-center studies with objective learning outcome measures are needed to confirm intervention effectiveness.
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) may support clinical decision-making but introduce automation bias when incorrect recommendations influence users. This study aimed to determine the occurrence of harmful automation bias among undergraduate radiological sciences students during AI-assisted radiotherapy decision-making and to examine the influence of time pressure. Methods: In a controlled experiment, 54 final-year undergraduate radiological sciences students with no prior clinical radiotherapy placement experience completed 20 simulated radiotherapy decision-making scenarios with 13 correct and seven deliberately incorrect AI recommendations (1080 trials). Initial and final responses, AI advice acceptance, confidence, perceived workload, and attitudes toward AI verification were assessed. Students were assigned to time-pressure (n = 26) or no-time-pressure (n = 28) conditions. Harmful automation bias was operationally defined as switching from an initially correct response to an incorrect response matching AI advice. Results: Harmful automation bias occurred in 20/220 eligible trials (9.1%), affecting 15/54 students (27.8%). Incorrect AI advice was followed in 137/378 trials (36.2%). Overall accuracy remained similar before and after AI exposure (75.65% vs. 74.91%; p = 0.289). Time pressure increased workload, but no statistically significant association with harmful automation bias was observed (OR = 0.78; p = 0.654). Lower post-decision confidence was associated with harmful automation bias (OR = 0.599; p = 0.028). No statistically significant difference in harmful automation bias was observed between participants who supported AI verification and those who did not. Conclusions: Harmful automation bias can occur despite stable overall accuracy, suggesting that greater emphasis on critical appraisal, active verification, and independent judgement may be valuable in radiotherapy education.
Healthcare educators face the challenge of adapting to new and innovative teaching practices to engage learners and support them to achieve learning outcomes. Educational technologies can assist with this, and extended reality, including virtual, mixed, and augmented realities, can be a potential solution. The aim of this study was to document healthcare professional educators’ perspectives on the use of extended reality (XR) to teach child health, with a view to using it for child development teaching. Using a qualitative exploratory design, focus-group discussions with health professional educators were held. Data from the focus group was analyzed using indicative content analysis. Fifteen participants engaged in the focus-group discussions. Analysis of this data resulted in the development of three categories: real children are the best for learning, but they come with challenges; there is an appeal to using XR; and there are challenges and enablers to using extended realities in child health teaching. Whilst the participants initially did not think that using a form of extended reality to simulate and educate healthcare learners about a well child would be useful, they did see that it does have potential in developmental screening. These results are useful for healthcare educators when considering educational technologies in their practice.
Background: Limited clinical exposure during obstetrics rotations hinders students’ ability to develop hands-on delivery skills. Simulation offers a risk-free environment for practicing procedures but also for objective evaluation of procedural competencies. This study evaluates the impact of a simulation-based training module using multiple assessment approaches, including a structured simulation-based objective checklist, pre- and post-intervention knowledge questionnaires, and self-assessment measures of perceived competence, on final-year students’ competencies in vaginal birth. Methods: A single-group prospective pre–post educational intervention study was conducted between May 2024 and June 2025 following the approval of the Ethics Committee of the University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Carol Davila”, Bucharest (approval no. 14354/2024). A total of 211 sixth-year medical students participated after completing their obstetrics–gynecology rotation. The training included a theoretical revision, a birth simulation scenario (a cephalic presentation), guided practice with faculty feedback, and a final objective evaluation. Evaluations included pre- and post-intervention knowledge questionnaires and Likert-based self-assessment of practical skills. Objective clinical competencies were assessed using a structured simulation-based checklist evaluating observable skills across key domains, including patient communication, vaginal examination, perineal support, delivery maneuvers, third-stage management, and placental assessment. Statistical analyses included paired t-tests, Wilcoxon tests, and effect size reporting. Results: Students demonstrated significant improvements in practical skills related to physiological vaginal birth (pre: 10.1; post: 19.4; Δ = +9.24; p < 0.001; d = 1.82) and mean confidence (pre: 1.95; post: 3.93; Δ = +1.99; p < 0.001; d = 1.66). Component-level analysis showed improvements in patient communication (Δ = +1.67), pelvic examination (Δ = +1.46), and controlled expulsion techniques (Δ = +1.23). Conclusions: Substantial improvements in simulated vaginal birth competencies and self-perceived confidence were observed following structured simulation-based training. These findings support the educational value of high-fidelity simulation as a complement to undergraduate obstetric training, while further research is needed to establish long-term retention and transfer to clinical practice.
