Years 1 & 2 Annual Comparison Report Student Evaluation ... · We have broken down the data to be...

1

Years 1 & 2 Annual Comparison Report Student Evaluation Questionnaire (SEQ) Summary, 2018-19

This comparison report is a summary of the SEQ feedback from Years 1 & 2 for the 2018-19 academic year. The SEQs are a mixture of numeric and written feedback. The numeric feedback has been colour coded green, amber and red. The responses are on a six point scale and the percentage is the number of positive responses (i.e. those rated Above average, Good and Excellent).

Description Student

Satisfaction %

Consistently below the expected standard. Requires significant improvement. 0 - <40%

Provides some quality experiences, but overall below the expected standard 40 - <75%*

Provides high quality educational experiences over time with action plans for minor problems 75 - 100%*

The system provides an indicator of the quality of teaching provided for the module; its statistical relevance will vary depending on the number of students who have provided feedback. We have broken down the data to be module specific i.e. covering the following:

Year 1 Circulation and Breathing

Year 1 Fluids, Nutrition and Metabolism

Year 1 Foundations of Health and Medical Practice

Year 1 Infection and Defence

Year 1 & 2 Student Selected Components

Year 1 & 2 Clinical and Professional Practice

Year 2 Endocrine Systems and Reproduction

Year 2 Genetics, Development and Cancer

Year 2 Movement and Musculoskeletal Biology

Year 2 Neuroscience and Behaviour For comparative and reference purposes the information for 2018-19 is presented in conjunction with 2017-18. Text comments relate to 2018-19 student experience.

Year 1

Student Satisfaction 2017-18 2018-19

Overall rating of Circulation and Breathing 95%

(n=99 95%

(n=82)

Overall rating of Fluids, Nutrition and Metabolism 74%

(n=87) 70%

(n=74)

Overall rating of Foundations of Health and Medical Practice

84% (n=165)

90% (n=156)

Overall rating of Infection and Defence 100%

(n=98)) 100%

(n=153)

Overall rating of Student Selected Components 91%

(n=209) 87%

(n=168)

Overall rating of Clinical & Professional Practice 88%

(n=1209)

82% (n=1664)

Circulation and Breathing text comments + Structured timetable + Recaps in lectures + Clinically relevant + Mix of teaching types - Insufficient summary and revision sessions - Lack of worksheets/clear resources - Unclear learning objectives/exam guidance

Fluids, Nutrition and Metabolism text comments + Clear detailed lecture slides + Well structured + Interesting - Anatomy not on lecturecast - More needed on metabolism - Guidance on core content/learning objectives

Foundations of Health and Medical Practice text comments + Case of the week + Quality of teaching + Different teaching methods + Interesting topics/content - Insufficient number of tutorials - Poor flow between lectures/topics - Lack of clarity of what students need to learn

Infection and Defence text comments + Quality of teaching & resources + Interesting content + Student forum + Structure of lectures - Lectures on related topics not timetabled together - No list of important pathogens available

2

Year 1 SSCs


Overall rating of A psychoanalytic understanding of Trauma 100% (n=6)

75% (n=4)

Overall rating of Academic Pre-Hospital Care 60% (n=5)

100% (n=5)

Overall rating of Anatomy from Rembrandt to Greys: learning medicine through the arts 80% (n=5)

80% (n=5)

Overall rating of Antibodies and rheumatologically diseases 100% (n=7)

100% (n=4)

Overall rating of Basic Molecular Techniques in Clinical Diagnoses and Research (Block 1) 80% (n=5)

57% (n=7)

Overall rating of Basic Molecular Techniques in Clinical Diagnoses and Research (Block 2) 100% (n=3)

0% (n=2)

Overall rating of Birth to 6 weeks: care & development of babies (Block 1) 100% (n=4)

100% (n=4)

Overall rating of Birth to 6 weeks: care & development of babies (Block 2) 100% (n=7)

100% (n=4)

Overall rating of Blood, bugs and pus: Painting, poetry, prose and the good doctor 100% (n=6)

100% (n=7)

Overall rating of Coding in Medicine: Introduction to Python N/A 67% (n=6)

Overall rating of Crime Prevention & Public Health 89% (n=9)

71% (n=7)

Overall rating of Death and Dying in Society, Theory and Practice (Block 1) 100% (n=9)

71% (n=7)

Overall rating of Death and Dying in Society, Theory and Practice (Block 2) N/A 100% (n=3)

Overall rating of Exercise, Physical Activity and Health 100% (n=10)

100% (n=6)

Overall rating of Expedition & Wilderness Medicine 100% (n=3)

100% (n=5)

Overall rating of French for Medicine and Current Affairs 100% (n=1)

0% (n=1)

Overall rating of From Skin to Metagenomics, Exploring Your Microbiome 50% (n=8)

71% (n=7)

Overall rating of Health Technology and the Body 67% (n=3)

100% (n=3)

Overall rating of Infectious Diseases In Resource Poor Settings 100% (n=8)

86% (n=7)

Overall rating of Introductory British Sign Language – (Block 1) 100% (n=5)

100% (n=5)

Overall rating of Introductory British Sign Language – (Block 2) 100% (n=4)

100% (n=2)

Overall rating of Maxillo Facial Surgery 100% (n=1)

100% (n=5)

Overall rating of Medicine and the Law: Issues at the End of Life 100% (n=4)

100% (n=10)

Overall rating of Music and Medicine N/A 100% (n=3)

Overall rating of Open Minds 100% (n=3)

100% (n=4)

Overall rating of Pre-Hospital Care: Acute Medicine in the Community 100% (n=7)

80% (n=5)

Overall rating of Sexpression 100% (n=7)

63% (n=8)

Overall rating of Spanish for Medicine Level 1 (A) 100% (n=1)

67% (n=3)

Overall rating of Spanish for Medicine Level 2 (B) 0%

(n=1) 100% (n=1)

Overall rating of Speak Up For Asthma Schools Programme 83% (n=6)

100% (n=4)

Overall rating of The Crick: Bringing biomedical research to life! 100% (n=7)

100% (n=8)

Overall rating of The Medic Apprentice: You’re Hired! N/A 100% (n=3)

3

Overall rating of Viva La Vulva: Women's Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights 100% (n=5)

100% (n=6)

Overall rating of Volunteering and your Personal Development 100% (n=5)

100% (n=3)

Overall rating of Who Cares? 100% (n=6)

100% (n=4)

A psychoanalytic understanding of trauma text comments + Format

Academic pre-hospital text comments + Research opportunities + Ability to set own timetable - one-on-one contact limited - Insufficient research information - Location/technical difficulties

Anatomy from Rembrandt to Greys text comments + Structure + Timetable + Feedback - Poetry

Antibodies and rheumatological diseases text comments No comments to report

Basic molecular techniques text comments + Laboratory experience + Feedback - Heavy workload - Deadlines/timings

Birth to 6 weeks text comments + Clinical elements/opportunities + Visits to museums and art galleries + Following a family - Insufficient clinical exposure - Lack of assessment guidance

Blood, bugs and pus text comments + Visits to museums and art galleries + Feedback - Assessment requirements

Coding in medicine text comments + Interesting content + Applications of coding (i.e. Python) - Fast pace - Difficult final task - Location/technical difficulties

Crime prevention & public health text comments + Interesting content - Too lecture-based/not interactive enough - Feedback/evaluation

Death and dying in society text comments + Opportunity to discuss topics + Brilliant teaching - Content can be dry - Workload

Exercise, physical activity and health text comments + Organisation: content, speakers/teachers + Assessment - Independent work

Expedition & wilderness medicine text comments + Experimental teaching + Activities + Feedback - Additional coursework - Timetable - Computer/IT/library resources – didn’t use them

French for medicine and current affairs text comments + Content - Distraction towards exams

From skin to metagenomics text comments + Enjoyable + Practical opportunities - Lack of guidance on techniques - Lack of resources

Health technology and the body text comments + Learning opportunities + - Supporting material to Moodle

Infectious diseases in resource poor settings text comments + Timetable + Range of speakers/lectures - Assessments - Location - computer/IT/library resources – n/a

Introductory British sign language text comments + Quality of teaching + Feedback - Revision material - Timetable

Maxillofacial surgery text comments + Clinical experience + - Organisation of clinical sessions - Feedback (this SSC may not require it)

Medicine and the law text comments + Interesting content + Opportunities for discussion - Availability of lecture slides

Music and medicine text comments + Content + Music appreciation session

Open minds text comments + Expert tutors + Organisation of school visits - Room allocation - Lack of teaching about mental health

Pre-hospital care text comments + Level of clinical exposure - Organisation problems caused by OH

Sexpression text comments + Teaching + Content - Organisation

Spanish for medicine level 1 (A) text comments + Teaching + Resources - Teaching too long - Timetable

4

Spanish for medicine level 2 (B) text comments + Content - Not accommodating to medics

Speak up for asthma text comments + Public speaking training + Opportunity to teach + Organisation + Enjoyable - Relations with schools

The Crick text comments + Laboratory/research experience + Structure/diversity - Level of flagship lectures

The medic apprentice text comments + Structure + Standard of teaching - Not enough clinical entrepreneurs - Staff members

Volunteering and your personal development text comments No comments to report

Who cares? text comments + Interaction with service users + Amazing/invaluable - Structure of some placements

5

Year 1 CPP


Overall rating of Anatomy & Imaging 84%

(n=93) 76%

(n=128)

Overall rating of Clinical Communication 98%

(n=93) 92%

(n=128)

Overall rating of Clinical Skills 100% (n=93)

98% (n=128)

Overall rating of e-Health 67%

(n=93) 59%

(n=128)

Overall rating of Ethics & Law 99%

(n=93) 92%

(n=128)

Overall rating of Mental Health 88%

(n=93) 77%

(n=128)

Overall rating of Patient Pathway in Integrated & Community Care (PPICC) 95%

(n=93) 94%

(n=128)

Overall rating of Portfolio 78% (n=93)

78% (n=128)

Overall rating of Professionalism 98%

(n=93) 89%

(n=128)

Overall rating of Social Determinants of Health 81%

(n=93) 84%

(n=128)

Overall rating of Use of Evidence 90% (n=93)

73% (n=128)

Overall rating of Use of Medicines 77%

(n=93) 76%

(n=128)

Anatomy & Imaging text comments + Anatomy excellent + Dissection valuable - Imaging lectures unfocused - Lack of tutors/guidance in the lab sessions - Requests for lecturecast

Clinical Communication text comments + Role play and peer feedback in SGW - Could have more

Clinical Skills text comments + Teaching model good + Very enjoyable - Requests for handouts/guides - Discrepancy between sites and online videos

e-Health text comments - Could be condensed / more put in - Requests for more tech-focused content

Ethics & Law text comments + Well-structured and engaging - Lectures long and can be dry

Mental Health text comments + Impact of family, culture, spirituality and religion on mental health lecture - Lectures long - Unclear objectives

PPICC text comments + Placements + Meeting patients - Occupational Health issues

Portfolio text comments + Reflective essay useful - Repetitive - Deadlines clash with other teaching - More guidance requested

Professionalism text comments + Good SGW

Social Determinants of Health text comments + Sir Michael Marmot lecture + Engaging lecturers - Could be condensed - Structure/Learning Objectives unclear

Use of Evidence text comments + LGW sessions engaging - Lectures could be condensed

Use of Medicine text comments + Tutorials useful - Requests for drugs list - Difficulty level high

6

Year 2


Overall rating of Endocrine Systems and Reproduction 98%

(n=62) 95%

(n=93)

Overall rating of Genetics, Development and Cancer 72%

(n=53) 94%

(n=51)

Overall rating of Movement and Musculoskeletal Biology 92%

(n=95) 96%

(n=122)

Overall rating of Neuroscience and Behaviour 98%

(n=80) 96%

(n=91)

Overall rating of Student Selected Components 76%

(n=71) 90%

(n=86)

Overall rating of Clinical & Professional Practice 87%

(n=966) 81%

(n=1428)

Endocrine Systems and Reproduction text comments + Organisation + SPLs and CALs + Structure + Resources - Some days too content heavy - Some slides not available in advance - Some slides too text dense

Genetics, Development and Cancer text comments + Structure + Lectures + Repetition and reinforcement + Clear course overview - Clearer learning objectives/core content - Many cancellations

Movement and Musculoskeletal Biology text comments + Quality of teaching and resources + Organisation/structure of the module + Interesting content + Anatomy laboratory sessions - Some anatomy sessions were too short - Anatomy sessions were timetabled too close together - Technical issues with some CALs

Neuroscience and Behaviour text comments + Variety of/interesting content + Structure of module + Quality of teaching + Practicals - Some lectures not available on lecturecast - Quality of some lecture slides - Organisation of some lectures

7

Year 2 SSCs


Overall rating of Academic Pre-Hospital Care 100% (n=2)

100% (n=2)

Overall rating of Arabic for Medicine Level 2 (B) N/A 100% (n=2)

Overall rating of Are we failing our children and our future? 100% (n=2)

100% (n=9)

Overall rating of Culture, Religion and the Clinical Encounter 83% (n=6)

100% (n=2)

Overall rating of Education or Choice N/A 100% (n=7)

Overall rating of Epithelial Function in Health and Disease 100% (n=1)

50% (n=2)

Overall rating of Evolution: What Every Doctor Needs to Know 75% (n=4)

60% (n=5)

Overall rating of French for Medicine Level 3 (C) N/A 100% (n=2)

Overall rating of French for Medicine Level 4 (D) N/A 50% (n=2)

Overall rating of History and Philosophy of Medicine and its Contemporary Relevance 33% (n=3)

0% (n=1)

Overall rating of How to live forever: research to prevent ageing N/A 100% (n=3)

Overall rating of Introduction to Children's Language Development 100% (n=4)

100% (n=7)

Overall rating of Japanese for Medicine Level 1 (A) N/A 100% (n=2)

Overall rating of Medical Policy: What is it, and why should you care? 50% (n=4)

100% (n=9)

Overall rating of Nanotechnology & Regenerative Medicine 40% (n=5)

100% (n=2)

Overall rating of Neuroimaging in Neurology N/A 100% (n=2)

Overall rating of Pathology, Ethics and Law N/A 100% (n=3)

Overall rating of Peer Tutoring at City & Islington College 6th Form Centre 100% (n=1)

67% (n=3)

Overall rating of Physiological imaging with nuclear medicine 100% (n=4)

100% (n=2)

Overall rating of Pre-hospital care and stadium medicine 100% (n=1)

100% (n=2)

Overall rating of Psychoanalytic approaches to emotional disorders 100% (n=3)

100% (n=1)

Overall rating of Self-organised SSC 100% (n=1)

100% (n=1)

Overall rating of Target Medicine 100% (n=4)

100% (n=2)

Overall rating of The Hitchhiker's Guide to Global Health 43% (n=7)

100% (n=4)

Overall rating of The sick role: patients in the movies 100% (n=4)

100% (n=4)

Overall rating of Transplantation Sciences - The Pieces of the Jig Saw Puzzle (Organ Procurement, Immunology and Intervention)

67% (n=3)

40% (n=5)

8

Academic Pre-Hospital Care text comments No comments to report

Arabic for medicine level 2 (B) text comments - Handwritten assessment

Are we failing our children text comments + Variety of topics covered + Interactive sessions - More assessment guidance - Hot/stuffy room

Culture, religion etc text comments + Interesting content + Interactive sessions - Level of pre-reading - More assessment guidance

Education for choice text comments + Interactive sessions + Organisation/structure - Hot/stuffy room

Epithelial function SSC text comments + Variety of lectures - Organisation

Evolution text comments + Interesting content + Exposure to research - Level of interaction

French for Medicine Level 3 (C) text comments No comments to report

French for medicine level 4 (D) text comments + Enjoyable/fun sessions

History & philosophy of medicine text comments + Interesting content - Lack of structure

How to live forever text comments + Lab experience + Organisation/structure - Unclear aims of lab sessions

Introduction to children’s language development text comments + Interesting content - Level of interaction

Japanese for medicine level 1 (A) text comments + Friendly/supportive teacher

Medical policy text comments + Organisation/structure + Interesting/informative content - Length of sessions - Insufficient debating practice

Nanotechnology & regenerative medicine text comments + Interesting content + Opportunity to visit labs - Assessment requirements

Neuroimaging in neurology text comments + Quality of teaching + Interesting content

Pathology, ethics and law text comments + Interesting content

Peer tutoring text comments + Fulfilling to work with 6th form students - Lack of clarity about assessment

Physiological imaging text comments + Variety of speakers + Interesting content

Pre-hospital care text comments + Level of clinical exposure + Interactive clinical skills sessions - Location of some LAS placements

Psychoanalytic approaches to emotional disorders text comments No comments to report

Target Medicine No comments to report

The hitchhiker’s guide text comments + Quality of teaching + Interesting content - Organisation of assessment

The sick role text comments + Fun/engaging content - Relevance of some films to the syllabus

Transplantation sciences text comments + Quality of teaching + Interesting content - Level of interaction

Self-organised SSC text comments + Ability to choose a subject area not offered in MBBS

..

9

Year 2 CPP



(n=69) 75%

(n=102)


(n=69) 90%

(n=102)

Overall rating of Clinical Skills 99%

(n=69) 94%

(n=102)


(n=69) 59%

(n=102)


(n=69) 98%

(n=102)


(n=69) 90%

(n=102)

Overall rating of Patient Pathway in Integrated & Community Care (PPICC) 90% (n=69)

81% (n=102)

Overall rating of Patient Pathway in Cardiometabolic Illness (CMPP) 85%

(n=69) 80%

(n=102)

Overall rating of Portfolio 69%

(n=69) 64%

(n=102)

Overall rating of Professionalism 90% (n=69)

90% (n=102)

Overall rating of Social Determinants of Health 81%

(n=69) 86%

(n=102)

Overall rating of Use of Evidence 96%

(n=69) 72%

(n=102)


(n=69) 64%

(n=102)

Anatomy & Imaging text comments + Good teaching, well taught - Intense – requests to space out - Requests for more online resources

Clinical Communication text comments + SGW good

Clinical Skills text comments + Engaging staff - Variation in procedures between sites and the handouts and exams

e-Health text comments + SPL - Unclear objectives

Ethics & Law text comments + Revision lecture + Clear objectives - more practical case based scenarios requested

Mental Health text comments + Important - Dry lectures, dense content

Patient Pathway in Cardiometabolic Illness + Patient contact - Variation between tutors - More relevant to Year 1

PPICC text comments + Placements - Distance to travel can be very far

Portfolio text comments - Deadlines should be earlier in year - Repetitive

Professionalism text comments + SGW good

Social Determinants of Health text comments + Good - Learning objectives unclear

Use of Evidence text comments + SPLs and CALs good - Confused / unengaging

Use of Medicine text comments + Well taught - Teaching doesn’t match drug list - Drug list very long - Dense content

10

Name and Proclaim and Responses to Concerns 2018-19

This table shows the number of Name and Proclaims and Raising Concerns that have been reported to the QAEU. It also includes the number of negative comments raised in the SEQs about named individuals involved with Years 1 & 2.

2017-18 2018-19

Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2

Name and Proclaim 0 0 0 3

Raising Concerns 0 0 0 0

Negative SEQ comments 5 3 0 4

11

Year 3 (iBSc) Comparison Report Student Evaluation Questionnaire (SEQ) Summary, 2018-19

This comparison report is a summary of the SEQ feedback from Year 3 for the 2018-19 academic year. The SEQs are a mixture of numeric and written feedback. The numeric feedback has been colour coded green, amber and red. The responses are on a six point scale and the percentage is the number of positive responses (i.e. those rated Above average, Good and Excellent).

Description Student

Satisfaction %




The system provides an indicator of the quality of teaching provided for the module; its statistical relevance will vary depending on the number of students who have provided feedback. We have broken down the data to be module specific. For comparative and reference purposes the information for 2018-19 is presented in conjunction with 2017-18. Text comments relate to 2018-19 student experience.


Overall rating of Anatomy, Cell & Developmental Biology 50% (n=4)

67% (n=6)

Overall rating of Cardiovascular Science 0%

(n=1) 100% (n=3)

Overall rating of Clinical Sciences 100% (n=2)

100% (n=9)

Overall rating of Global Health 80%

(n=10) 94%

(n=18)

Overall rating of History & Philosophy of Science & Medicine 100% (n=1)

100% (n=1)

Overall rating of Human Genetics & Genomics No responses

received 100% (n=2)

Overall rating of Immunology, Infection & Cell Pathology 100% (n=4)

100% (n=12)

Overall rating of Mathematics, Computers & Medicine N/A 100% (n=11)

Overall rating of Medical Anthropology 100% (n=2)

100% (n=11)

Overall rating of Medical Physics & Biomedical Engineering 100% (n=9)

92% (n=12)

Overall rating of Neuroscience 50%

(n=10) 65%

(n=34)

Overall rating of Oncology N/A 100% (n=6)

Overall rating of Paediatrics & Child Health 80% (n=5)

95% (n=20)

Overall rating of Pharmacology 0%

(n=1) 0%

(n=1)

Overall rating of Physiology 50% (n=4)

100% (n=7)

Overall rating of Physiology & Pharmacology No responses

received No responses

received

Overall rating of Primary Health Care 83% (n=6)

100% (n=1)

Overall rating of Psychology 75% (n=4)

75% (n=4)

Overall rating of Sports & Exercise Medical Sciences 50% (n=4)

46% (n=13)

Overall rating of Surgical Science N/A 100% (n=8)

Overall rating of Women’s Health 100% (n=6)

100% (n=12)

12

Anatomy text comments + Lab work/research opportunities + Interesting content - Insufficient assessment guidance

Cardiovascular text comments + Structure/organisation + Small group teaching - Insufficient assessment guidance - Lack of timely feedback

Clinical Sciences text comments + Interesting content + Research opportunities - Level of assessment

Global Health text comments + Interesting content + Quality of teaching - Insufficient assessment guidance

History & Philosophy text comments + Engagement of lecturers - Lack of interaction in some lectures

Human Genetics text comments + Interesting content - Content not available on Moodle prior to lectures - Insufficient assessment guidance

Immunology text comments + Structure/organisation + Research projects/research - Level of Cell Pathology module

Mathematics text comments + Variety of content & projects - Insufficient assessment guidance - Level/difficulty of some modules

Medical Anthropology text comments + Quality of teaching + Variety of modules available - Reading lists not available in the summer

Medical Physics text comments + Interesting content + Quality of teaching + Research opportunities - Insufficient resources/tutorials to help medical students transition to course

Neuroscience text comments + Variety of content + Quality of teaching - Insufficient guidance on reading papers/assessment - Lack of organisation

Oncology text comments + Interesting content - Structure/organisation - Insufficient assessment guidance

Paediatrics text comments + Interesting content + Clinical exposure + Supportive staff - Insufficient guidance on assessment

Pharmacology text comments + Supportive staff - Lack of support in lab projects

Physiology text comments + Research opportunities + Interesting content - Insufficient guidance on reading papers

Psychology text comments + Friendly, supportive staff - Structure/organisation

Sports & Exercise text comments + Interesting content - Insufficient guidance/support on assessment - Structure/organisation

Surgical Science text comments + Clinical exposure + Quality of teaching - Structure/organisation

Women’s Health text comments + Interesting content + Quality of teaching + Clinical exposure - Structure/organisation

Name and Proclaim and Responses to Concerns 2018-19 This table shows the number of Name and Proclaims and Raising Concerns that have been reported to the QAEU. It also includes the number of

negative comments raised in the SEQs about named individuals involved with Year 3 (iBSc)

2017-18 2018-19

Name and Proclaim 0 0

Raising Concerns 1 0

Negative SEQ comments 3 3

13

Years 4 & 5 Annual Central Site Comparison

Student Evaluation Questionnaire (SEQ) Summary, 2018-19 This site comparison is a summary of the SEQ feedback from Years 4 & 5 for the 2018-19 academic year. The SEQs are a mixture of numeric and written feedback. The numeric feedback has been colour coded green, amber and red. The responses are on a six point scale and the percentage is the number of positive responses (i.e. those rated Above average, Good and Excellent).

Description Student

Satisfaction %




The system provides an indicator of the quality of teaching provided for the module; its statistical relevance will vary depending on the number of students who have provided feedback. We have broken down the data to be site-specific and, as far as possible, module and speciality specific – i.e. covering the following:

Module 4A

Module 4B

Module 4C

Module 5A

Module 5B

Module 5C For comparative and reference purposes the information for 2018-19 is presented in conjunction with 2017-18. Text comments relate to 2018-19 student experience.

Year 4 IOM

2017-18 2018-19

Student Satisfaction Royal Free UCLH Whittington Royal Free UCLH Whittington

IOM 98%

(n=46) 100% (n=42)

100% (n=34)

88% (n=32)

94% (n=33)

100% (n=39)

Royal Free text comments + PALS teaching + Examinations-

UCLH text comments + PALS teaching + Examinations

Whittington text comments + PALS teaching + Examinations

Module 4A

2017-18 2018-19


Module rating 100% (n=48)

100% (n=42)

97% (n=39)

92% (n=24)

100% (n=27)

98% (n=43)

Core teaching week 85%

(n=129) 64%

(n=85)

Cardiology placement 89%

(n=48) 85%

(n=42) 92%

(n=39) 76%

(n=25) 64%

(n=29) 71%

(n=39)

Psychiatry in Medical Practice 60%

(n=129) 39%

(n=85)

Vascular Surgery placement 92%

(n=129) N/A N/A

92% (n=85)

N/A N/A

Acute Medicine placement 100% (n=48)

93% (n=42)

87% (n=39)

72% (n=25)

90% (n=29)

90% (n=31)

Preparation for Practice week 85%

(n=129) N/A N/A

77% (n=85)

N/A N/A

Respiratory placement 88%

(n=48) 95%

(n=42) 92%

(n=39) 84%

(n=25) 100% (n=29)

100% (n=31)

Critical Care/ITU placement 98%

(n=48) 92%

(n=42) 83%

(n=39) 92%

(n=25) 90%

(n=33) 76%

(n=31)

GP attachment 91%

(n=129) 87%

(n=85)

Royal Free text comments + Teaching + Organised - Overlap teaching - Last module – too close to exams

UCLH text comments + Teaching + Well organised - lack of module tutors - lack of cardio ward

Whittington text comments + organisation - cardio disorganised - lack of proper syllabus - teaching content - lockers

14

2017-18 2018-19

Student Satisfaction

Bar

ne

t

Bar

ne

t

Cardiology placement 76%

(n=129) 69%

(n=85)

Barnet text comments + teaching + great placement - computer login - timetable - not enough bedside teaching - consultant teaching

Module 4B

2017-18 2018-19


Module rating 91%

(n=45) 89%

(n=35) 70%

(n=40) 85%

(n=33) 96%

(n=51) 79%

(n=38)


(n=120) 44%

(n=122)

Movement – Rheumatology placement 87%

(n=45) 100% (n=35)

88% (n=40)

85% (n=33)

100% (n=51)

87% (n=38)

Movement – Orthopaedics and Trauma placement 64%

(n=45) 83%

(n=35) 78%

(n=40) 48%

(n=33) 80%

(n=51) 89%

(n=38)

Digestive Health Surgery placement 77%

(n=45) 74%

(n=35) 68%

(n=40) 70%

(n=33) 90%

(n=51) 74%

(n=38)

Digestive Health Gastroenterology/Hepatology placement

91% (n=45)

91% (n=35)

65% (n=40)

100% (n=33)

96% (n=51)

71% (n=38)

Peri-operative and Anaesthetics placement 96%

(n=45) 97%

(n=35) 90%

(n=40) 88%

(n=33) 98%

(n=51) 79%

(n=38)

GP attachment 91%

(n=120) 83%

(n=122)

Royal Free text comments + teaching/bedside teaching - lack of introduction to code of conduct - module structure - teaching/clinics - organisation - sign off - felt unwelcomed on ward - lack of bedside teaching - sessions Wednesday afternoons - timetable

UCLH text comments + module + teaching - curriculum - gastro - location - registrar/’destructive’ teaching/toxic environment - timetable - teaching - cancellations - 10 page essay - lack of bedside teaching – ortho - sign off - organisation

Whittington text comments + module/teaching - long module - cancelled clinics/consultants not present - exposure to rheumatology - ‘prize student’ - mostly male consultants - organization - hepatology teaching - lockers - consultants - be more interactive - rotation too long - no-shows for tutorials.

15

Module 4C

2017-18 2018-19


Module rating 89%

(n=36) 97%

(n=29) 89%

(n=38) 90%

(n=42) 81%

(n=26) 85%

(n=27)


(n=103) 47%

(n=95)

Endocrinology placement 61%

(n=36) 83%

(n=29) 82%

(n=38) 67%

(n=42) 58%

(n=26) 44%

(n=27)

Haematology placement 78%

(n=36) 86%

(n=29) 95%

(n=38) 67%

(n=42) 88%

(n=26) 74%

(n=27)

Infection/Immunity/Microbiology placement 94%

(n=36) 90%

(n=29) 63%

(n=38) 100% (n=42)

77% (n=26)

93% (n=27)

Renal placement 50%

(n=36) 61%

(n=29) 74%

(n=38) 95%

(n=42) 92%

(n=26) 88%

(n=27)

Neurology placement 95%

(n=56) 96%

(n=47) N/A

85% (n=40)

91% (n=55)

N/A

GP attachment 73%

(n=103) 83%

(n=95)

Royal Free text comments + teaching + well run - IS and Haem rotations were too short - student monitoring - timetable - students felt ignored by some doctors - too short

UCLH text comments + Very mixed - change in specialists - SEQ feedback process - last placement before exams - quick changes in specialists - book heavy - heavy rotations

Whittington text comments + interesting -SEQ feedback process – why at the end of the module? - seminars - module – disjointed and bitty - location - teaching - timetable

Year 4 CPP



(n=60) 88%

(n=80)

Overall rating of Cancer Patient Pathway 55%

(n=60) 63%

(n=80)


(n=60) 93%

(n=80)

Overall rating of Clinical Skills 97%

(n=60) 95%

(n=80)


(n=60) 45%

(n=80)


(n=60) 89%

(n=80)


(n=60) 69%

(n=80)

Overall rating of Professionalism 88%

(n=60) 66%

(n=80)

Overall rating of Social Determinants of Health 75% (n=60)

66% (n=80)

Overall rating of Use of Evidence 68%

(n=60) 63%

(n=80)


(n=60) 45%

(n=80)

Anatomy & Imaging text comments + teaching + organisation - timing – overload of information - more focus on CT scan

Cancer Patient Pathway text comments + interesting way of learning+ - organisation - preferred lecture vs tutorial - tardiness - timetable

Clinical Communication text comments + simulation + tutorials + teaching - audio/visual equipment not working -

Clinical Skills text comments + teaching

e-Health text comments - curriculum

Ethics & Law text comments + teaching

16

+ tutors/staff - lack of online lectures and assignments

- teaching - length – too long - lack of online lectures and assignments

+ content - handouts - clinical sessions - lack of online lectures and assignments

Mental Health text comments + teaching - psychiatry “taster week” unnecessary – will be taught in 5th year - teaching - lack of online lectures and assignments

Professionalism text comments + teaching session - curriculum - sessions too long - timing of module – better at the beginning of the year - lack of online lectures and assignments

Social Determinants of Health text comments + teaching + talk on homelessness - session earlier in the year - lack of online lectures and assignments

Use of Evidence text comments - teaching - more exam focused

Use of Medicine text comments + teaching + material - technology – flash videos - prescribing session - resources poor - teaching

Year 5 IOM & Anchor Week

2017-18 2018-19


IOM 56%

(n=64) 81%

(n=54)

Anchor Week 24%

(n=80_ 57%

(n=56)

Year 5 IOM - lectures/teaching – not engaging

- too much global health - too many sessions

Year 5 Anchor Week + lectures - lectures not helpful, unclear - schedule - more OSCE practice - objectives, aims of anchor week – communicate them earlier

Module 5A

Comments + Paeds DGH and my GP + organisation - Paeds teaching - derm week - add - GP placement - more structured teaching

2017-18 2018-19


Module rating 92%

(n=84) 96%

(n=73)


(n=84) 89%

(n=73)

Paediatrics placement 72%

(n=25) 79%

(n=29) 87%

(n=30) 77%

(n=31) 100% (n=21)

90% (n=21)

Dermatology placement 76%

(n=25) 68%

(n=29) 77%

(n=30) 90%

(n=31) 90%

(n=21) 95%

(n=21)

17

Module 5B

2017-18 2018-19


Module rating 94%

(n=128) 98%

(n=130)


(n=128) 91%

(n=130)

Formative assessment day 92%

(n=128) 88%

(n=130)

O&G placement 95%

(n=39) 96%

(n=46) 79%

(n=43) 81%

(n=47) 90%

(n=40) 65%

(n=43)

Breast Surgery placement 51%

(n=39) 89%

(n=46) 40%

(n=43) 64%

(n=47) 79%

(n=40) 77%

(n=43)

Urology placement 73%

(n=128) 72%

(n=130)

Comments

+ teaching + organisation - lectures + clinical opportunities + OSCE practices - material - O&G module too long - pathology – not helpful - administration - timetabling

Module 5C

2017-18 2018-19


Module rating 80%

(n=101) 88%

(n=112)


(n=101) 86%

(n=112)

Formative assessment day 95%

(n=101) 92%

(n=112)

Ophthalmology placement 91%

(n=101) N/A

89% (n=101)

91% (n=112)

N/A 87%

(n=112)

ENT placement N/A 84%

(n=101) N/A N/A

87% (n=112)

N/A

COOP placement 76%

(n=33) 94%

(n=35) 94%

(n=33) 92%

(n=26) 77%

(n=53) 94%

(n=33)

Oncology placement 39%

(n=23) 48%

(n=78) N/A

65% (n=20)

58% (n=90)

N/A

Comments + teaching + specialities + psych placement - content - more concise teaching - organisation - module fragmented - lack of oncology

18

Name and Proclaim and Responses to Concerns

2018-19 This table shows the number of Name and Proclaims and Raising Concerns that were reported to the QAEU during 2018-19 for the three central sites. It also includes the number of negative comments raised in the SEQs about named individuals.

2017-18 2018-19

Royal Free UCLH Whittington Royal Free UCLH Whittington

Name and Proclaim 9 11 5 3 3 1

Raising Concerns 3 2 4 5 3 1

Negative SEQ comments 18 9 22 12 24 12

19

Years 5 & 6 Annual Site Comparison Student Evaluation Questionnaire (SEQ) Summary, 2018-19

This site comparison is a summary of the SEQ feedback from Years 5 & 6 for the sites (excluding central sites) for the 2018-19 academic year. The SEQs are a mixture of numeric and written feedback. The numeric feedback has been colour coded green, amber and red. The responses are on a six point scale and the percentage is the number of positive responses (i.e. those rated Above average, Good and Excellent).

Description Student

Satisfaction %




The system provides an indicator of the quality of teaching provided for the module; its statistical relevance will vary depending on the number of students who have provided feedback. We have broken down the data to be site-specific and, as far as possible, module and speciality specific – i.e. covering the following:

Module 5A

Module 5B

Module 5C

Year 6

For comparative and reference purposes the information for 2018-19 is presented in conjunction with 2017-18. Text comments relate to 2018-19 student experience.

Modules 5A & 5B

2017-18 2018-19


Bar

ne

t

Bas

ildo

n

List

er

Luto

n &

Du

nst

able

No

rth

Mid

dle

sex

Qu

ee

ns

Wat

ford

CN

WL

Bar

ne

t

Bas

ildo

n

List

er

Luto

n &

D

un

stab

le

No

rth

Mid

dle

sex

Qu

ee

ns

Wat

ford

CN

WL

Paediatrics placement 100% (n=19)

60% (n=5)

100% (n=8)

90% (n=20)

93% (n=15)

78% (n=9)

88% (n=8)

N/A 81%

(n=21) 50% (n=8)

100% (n=4)

100% (n=13)

80% (n=10)

64% (n=11)

86% (n=7)

N/A

O&G placement 100% (n=17)

74% (n=19)

80% (n=10)

86% (n=29)

83% (n=30)

82% (n=11)

83% (n=12)

N/A 100% (n=13)

100% (n=20)

100% (n=16)

95% (n=20)

91% (n=34)

77% (n=13)

100% (n=14)

N/A

GUM/HIV placement N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 97%

(n=128) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

95% (n=130)

20

Module 5C sites

2017-18 2018-19


BEH

MH

T

C&

I

PH

NL

PH

SL

Mo

orf

ield

s

BEH

MH

T

C&

I

PH

NL

PH

SL

Mo

orf

ield

s

Psychiatry placement 90%

(n=19) 78%

(n=71) 75% (n=4)

88% (n=7)

N/A 90% (n=21)

86% (n=78)

100% (n=4)

78% (n=9)

N/A

Ophthalmology placement N/A N/A N/A N/A 97%

(n=101) N/A N/A N/A N/A

99% (n=112)

Barnet text comments + HX and examination + SHO excellent + O&G - teaching - more labour ward - organisation - clinics week – poor - neonatology – total apathy - more labour ward

Basildon text comments + organisation + team + history and exams + O&G - doctors disinterested

Lister text comments + clerk patients + OSCE + O&G - teaching on scanning - teaching organisation

Luton & Dunstable text comments + teaching + clerk patients + MOSCE O&G - organisation - timetable

North Middlesex text comments + organisation + clinic + A&E/PAU + excellent placement - no bedside teaching - clinical sessions with St George’s – ability gap – clinics occupied - little opportunity to discuss cases - bedside teaching - teaching frequently cancelled

Queen’s text comments + teaching + opportunity to ork in paeds ED - no opportunity to examine patients - cancelled teaching - request feedback after rotation - little teaching at Romford

Watford text comments + O&G teaching - more neonatal teaching - little teaching - better timetables

CNWL text comments + no comments

21

BEHMHT text comments + excellent placement + excellent teaching - no OSCE practice

C&I text comments + Excellent placement + ability to be with crisis and ward team + excellent feedback -GP placement - more variety of psych conditions - PICU at St Pancreas – difficult placement - access to wards - lack of formal teaching

PHNL text comments + excellent placement

PHSL text comments + very good teaching

Moorfields text comments + no comments

Module 5C Palliative Care sites


Islin

gto

n E

LiP

Se a

nd

Cam

de

n P

alli

ativ

e

Car

e

Mar

ie C

uri

e H

amp

ste

ad

Me

ado

wh

ou

se (

Ealin

g H

osp

ita

l)

Mic

hae

l So

be

ll (M

t V

ern

on

)

No

rth

Lo

nd

on

Ho

spic

e E

nfi

eld

No

rth

Lo

nd

on

Ho

spic

e F

inch

ley

(Co

mm

un

ity

Team

)

No

rth

Lo

nd

on

Ho

spic

e F

inch

ley

(In

pat

ien

t)

No

rth

wic

k P

ark

Pal

liati

ve C

are

Pal

liati

ve C

are

Bar

ne

t

Pe

mb

rid

ge U

nit

St J

oh

ns

(St

Joh

n's

Wo

od

)

St J

ose

ph

's (

Hac

kne

y)

St L

uke

's (

Har

row

)

UC

LH P

allia

tive

Car

e T

eam

Palliative care placement 2017-18 43% (n=7)

79% (n=19)

100% (n=5)

71% (n=7)

67% (n=3)

0% (n=2)

100% (n=2)

75% (n=8)

100% (n=5)

62% (n=13)

80% (n=6)

82% (n=11)

100% (n=7)

67% (n=6)

Palliative care placement 2018-19 85%

(n=13) 100% (n=19)

78% (n=9)

33% (n=9)

75% (n=8)

33% (n=6)

100% (n=2)

86% (n=7)

100% (n=6)

No responses received

69% (n=13)

100% (n=2)

100% (n=6)

83% (n=12)

Islington ELiPSe and Camden Palliative Care text comments + home visits – learned to communicate with patients + excellent placement - longer placement

Marie Curie Hampstead text comments + excellent teaching - longer placement

Meadowhouse (Ealing Hospital) text comments + excellent teaching from local registrar - consultant not present for most placements

22

Michael Sobell text comments - poor placement – ward was being shut down – only 1 patient - long commute for only 1 patient - team not supportive

North London Hospice Enfield text comments + excellent placement - travel time - no clinical opportunities

Finchley (Community Team) text comments + no comments -

Finchley (Dr Baxter) text comments + no comments -

Northwick Park Palliative Care text comments + excellent placement - ½ day placement too short – better if a one day placement

Palliative Care Barnet text comments + excellent placement - placement too short

Pembridge Unit text comments + no comments

St John’s (St John’s Wood) text comments + good placement + good teaching - better if a full day placement

St Joseph’s (Hackney) text comments - 4 day placement too long

St Luke’s (Harrow) text comments + excellent placement - ½ day too short

UCLH Palliative Care Team text comments + excellent placement - ½ day too short - no hospice allocation

23

Year 6 Annual Site Comparison Student Evaluation Questionnaire (SEQ) Summary, 2018-19

This site comparison is a summary of the SEQ feedback from Year 6 for the sites (excluding central sites) for the 2018-19 academic year. The SEQs are a mixture of numeric and written feedback. The numeric feedback has been colour coded green, amber and red. The responses are on a six point scale and the percentage is the number of positive responses (i.e. those rated Above average, Good and Excellent).

Description Student

Satisfaction %




The system provides an indicator of the quality of teaching provided for the module; its statistical relevance will vary depending on the number of students who have provided feedback. We have broken down the data to be site-specific and, as far as possible, module and speciality specific.

For comparative and reference purposes the information for 2018-19 is presented in conjunction with 2017-18. Text comments relate to 2018-19 student experience.

Year 6

2017-18 2018-19


Bar

ne

t

Bas

ildo

n

List

er

Luto

n &

Du

nst

able

No

rth

Mid

dle

sex

Wat

ford

Wh

itti

ngt

on

Bar

ne

t

Bas

ildo

n

List

er

Luto

n &

Du

nst

able

No

rth

Mid

dle

sex

Wat

ford

Wh

itti

ngt

on

Placement rating 95%

(n=19) 100% (n=25)

100% (n=29)

98% (n=41)

85% (n=20)

92% (n=12)

N/A 94%

(n=17) 96%

(n=28) 100% (n=31)

98% (n=52)

75% (n=16)

100% (n=10)

N/A

Medicine placement 89%

(n=19) 84%

(n=25) 97%

(n=29) 85%

(n=41) 90%

(n=20) 92%

(n=12) N/A

100% (n=17)

96% (n=28)

97% (n=31)

88% (n=52)

81% (n=16)

100% (n=10)

N/A

Surgery placement 68%

(n=19) 72%

(n=25) 90%

(n=29) 78%

(n=41) 90%

(n=20) 75%

(n=12) N/A

59% (n=17)

64% (n=28)

94% (n=21)

46% (n=52)

63% (n=16)

90% (n=10)

N/A

Emergency Medicine placement 100% (n=19)

100% (n=25)

97% (n=29)

100% (n=41)

70% (n=20)

100% (n=12)

N/A 100% (n=17)

100% (n=28)

97% (n=31)

100% (n=52)

88% (n=16)

100% (n=10)

N/A

Long Term Conditions placement 32%

(n=19) 88%

(n=25) 97%

(n=29) 66%

(n=41) 85%

(n=20) 58%

(n=12) N/A

94% (n=17)

68% (n=28)

97% (n=31)

75% (n=52)

63% (n=16)

70% (n=10)

N/A

Supervision in clinical areas 79%

(n=19) 96%

(n=25) 97%

(n=29) 95%

(n=41) 74%

(n=20) 100% (n=12)

N/A 100% (n=17)

93% (n=28)

100% (n=31)

90% (n=52)

69% (n=16)

100% (n=10)

N/A

Mock clinical OSCE 100% (n=19)

100% (n=25)

97% (n=29)

100% (n=41)

95% (n=20)

100% (n=12)

N/A 100% (n=17)

96% (n=28)

100% (n=31)

100% (n=52)

100% (n=16)

100% (n=10)

N/A

Accommodation 100% (n=19)

60% (n=25)

83% (n=29)

98% (n=41)

91% (n=20)

56% (n=12)

N/A 100% (n=17)

82% (n=28)

80% (n=31)

100% (n=52)

100% (n=16)

40% (n=10)

N/A

Preparation for Practice 90%

(n=10) 67% (n=3)

100% (n=14)

47% (n=17)

80% (n=15)

100% (n=4)

60% (n=5)

93% (n=15)

50% (n=2)

100% (n=24)

65% (n=20)

69% (n=13)

100% (n=3)

100% (n=4)

24

Barnet text comments + Friendly, encouraging staff + Emergency medicine + Preparation for Practice + Mock OSCE - Not enough clinical skills - Students didn’t have access cards

Basildon text comments + Friendly, helpful staff +Respiratory +Emergency Medicine - Some Long-term conditions activities did not take place -Surgery

Lister text comments + Clinical Skills +Really friendly, supportive, encouraging staff + Great teaching on surgery +Preparation for Practice excellent and flexible - Some surgery teaching did not take place - Library facilities

Luton & Dunstable text comments + Bleep roulette + Emergency medicine + Bedside teaching - Too many sign-offs required - Surgery teaching - Surgery organisation

North Middlesex text comments + Emergency Medicine + Mock OSCE - Not enough bedside teaching – sometimes none - Disruptive building work

Watford text comments + Palliative care + Great administration +Clinical Skills - IT access - Accommodation issues

Whittington text comments + Orthopaedic department + Approachable and accommodating staff; great teaching

Name and Proclaim and Responses to Concerns

2018-19 This table shows the number of Name and Proclaims and Raising Concerns that were reported to the QAEU during 2018-19 for each site. It also includes the number of negative comments raised in the SEQs about named individuals.

2017-18 2018-19

Bar

ne

t

Bas

ildo

n

Cam

de

n &

Islin

gto

n

List

er

Luto

n &

Du

nst

able

No

rth

Mid

dle

sex

Qu

ee

ns

Wat

ford

PH

NL

St P

ancr

as

Bar

ne

t

Bas

ildo

n

Cam

de

n &

Islin

gto

n

List

er

Luto

n &

Du

nst

able

No

rth

Mid

dle

sex

Qu

ee

ns

Wat

ford

PH

NL

St P

ancr

as

Name and Proclaim 3 4 0 3 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0

Raising Concerns 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

Negative SEQ comments 2 2 1 0 2 2 0 0 1 3 0 1 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 0

25

League of satisfaction 2018-19

This data is generated from the question in the SEQs that asks students’ overall satisfaction with the module/placement. Due to the duration of the Palliative Care placements, they have not been included.

Site Placement Overall satisfaction

Year

UCL Infection and Defence 100% 1

Whittington IOM 100% 4

UCLH Module A 100% 4

UCLH Paediatrics 100% 5

Barnet Emergency Medicine 100% 6

Basildon Emergency Medicine 100% 6

Luton & Dunstable Emergency Medicine 100% 6

Watford Emergency Medicine 100% 6

Barnet Medicine 100% 6

Watford Medicine 100% 6

Lister Placement 100% 6

Watford Placement 100% 6

Lister Preparation for Practice 100% 6

Watford Preparation for Practice 100% 6

Whittington Preparation for Practice 100% 6

UCL Cardiovascular Science 100% 3

UCL Clinical Sciences 100% 3

UCL History and Philosophy of Science and

Medicine 100% 3

UCL Human Genetics and Genomics 100% 3

UCL Immunology, Infection and Cell

Pathology 100% 3

UCL Mathematics, Computers and

Medicine 100% 3

UCL Medical Anthropology 100% 3

UCL Oncology 100% 3

UCL Physiology 100% 3

UCL Primary Health Care 100% 3

UCL Surgical Science 100% 3

UCL Women's Health 100% 3

Whittington Module A 98% 4

UCLH Module B 98% 5

Luton & Dunstable Placement Overall 98% 6

Lister Emergency 97% 6

Lister Long Term 97% 6

Lister Medicine 97% 6

UCL Neuroscience and Behaviour 96% 2

UCL Movement and Musculoskeletal

Biology 96% 2

UCLH Module A 96% 5

26

UCLH Module B 96% 4

Basildon Medicine 96% 6

Basildon Placement Overall 96% 6

UCL Endocrine Systems and Reproduction 95% 2

UCL Circulation and Breathing 95% 1

UCL Paediatrics and Child Health 95% 3

UCL Genetics, Development and Cancer 94% 2

UCLH IOM 94% 4

Barnet Long Term Conditions 94% 6

Barnet Placement Overall 94% 6

Lister Surgery 94% 6

UCL Global Health 94% 3

Barnet Preparation for Practice 93% 6

Royal Free Module A 92% 4

UCL Medical Physics and Biomedical

Engineering 92% 3

UCL Foundations of Health and Medical

Practice 90% 1

UCL Student Selected Components 90% 2

Royal Free Module C 90% 4

UCLH O&G 90% 5

Whittington Paediatrics 90% 5

Watford Surgery 90% 6

Royal Free IOM 88% 4

UCLH Module C 88% 5

North Middlesex Emergency Medicine 88% 6

Luton & Dunstable Medicine 88% 6

UCL Student Selected Components 87% 1

Royal Free Module B 85% 4

Whittington Module C 85% 4

UCL Clinical and Professional Practice 82% 1

UCL Clinical and Professional Practice 81% 2

N/A IOM 81% 5

UCLH Module C 81% 4

Royal Free O&G 81% 5

North Middlesex Medicine 81% 6

Whittington Module B 79% 4

Royal Free Paediatrics 77% 5

Luton & Dunstable Long Term Conditions 75% 6

North Middlesex Placement Overall 75% 6

UCL Psychology 75% 3

UCL Fluids, Nutrition and Metabolism 70% 1

Watford Long term conditions 70% 6

North Middlesex Preparation for Practice 69% 6

Basildon Long term conditions 68% 6

UCL Anatomy, Cell and Developmental 67% 3

27

Biology

Whittington O&G 65% 5

Luton & Dunstable Preparation for Practice 65% 6

UCL Neuroscience 65% 3

Basildon Surgery 64% 6

North Middlesex Long Term Conditions 63% 6

North Middlesex Surgery 63% 6

Barnet Surgery 59% 6

Basildon Preparation for Practice 50% 6

Luton & Dunstable Surgery 46% 6

UCL Sports and Exercise Medical Sciences 46% 3

UCL Pharmacology 0% 3

Years 1 & 2 Annual Comparison Report Student Evaluation ... · We have broken down the data to be...

Documents

Transcript of Years 1 & 2 Annual Comparison Report Student Evaluation ... · We have broken down the data to be...