PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to identify the status of clerkship education and its evaluation in Korea. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to 943personnel in 23clinical departments of 41medical schools nationwide from April, 1 to April 10, 2004. We analyzed the 638 questionnaires that were collected from 39medical schools. RESULTS: The most frequently used methodologies for clerkship education were small group lecture(17.1%), observation of ambulatory care(15.7%), seminar(12.9%), observation and support of operation(12.4%), ward rounding(12.1%). The relative proportion of educational methodologies was varied according to the type of clinical departments. Most of the clinical clerkship activity was conducted in the university hospital. Also, the clerkship activities were educated by professors(57.8%), fellows(9.1%), residents(30.6%) and others(2.5%). The evaluation methods were written exam(21.8%), attendance(17.5%), report(14.0%), and oral exam(12.0%). In terms of evaluating items, acquirement of clinical knowledge has been mainly tested. However, students' ability to communicate, build human relationship, and clinical skills has been less frequently evaluated in most of medical schools. CONCLUSION: It is most likely that the current status of clerkship education and its evaluation in Korea is focused on the education and assessment of clinical knowledge. To improve this, the following areas need to be enriched: interaction between faculty and students, experience-based clerkship, effective feedback, time management, objectivity of evaluation, performance evaluation.
Clinical Clerkship ; Clinical Competence ; Education* ; Evaluation Studies as Topic ; Humans ; Korea ; Schools, Medical* ; Time Management ; Surveys and Questionnaires

Background: We hypothesized in this study that the characteristics of retear cases vary according to surgeon volume and that surgical outcomes differ between primary and revision arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (revisional ARCR). Methods: Surgeons performing more than 12 rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) per year were defined as high-volume surgeons, and those performing fewer than 12 RCRs were considered low-volume surgeons. Of the 47 patients who underwent revisional ARCR at our clinic enrolled in this study, 21 cases were treated by high-volume surgeons and 26 cases by low-volume surgeons. In all cases, the interval betweenprimary surgery and revisional ARCR, degree of “acromial scuffing,” number of anchors, RCR technique, retear pattern, fatty infiltration,retear size, operating time, and clinical outcome were recorded. Results: During primary surgery, significantly more lateral anchors (p=0.004) were used, and the rate of use of the double-row repair technique was significantly higher (p<0.001) in the high- versus low-volume surgeon group. Moreover, the “cut-through pattern” was observedsignificantly more frequently among the cases treated by high- versus low-volume surgeons (p=0.008). The clinical outcomes after revisional ARCR were not different between the two groups. Conclusions Double-row repair during primary surgery and the cut-through pattern during revisional ARCR were more frequent in thehigh- versus low-volume surgeon groups. However, no differences in retear site or size, fatty infiltration grade, or outcomes were observedbetween the groups.

Background: We hypothesized in this study that the characteristics of retear cases vary according to surgeon volume and that surgical outcomes differ between primary and revision arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (revisional ARCR). Methods: Surgeons performing more than 12 rotator cuff repairs (RCRs) per year were defined as high-volume surgeons, and those performing fewer than 12 RCRs were considered low-volume surgeons. Of the 47 patients who underwent revisional ARCR at our clinic enrolled in this study, 21 cases were treated by high-volume surgeons and 26 cases by low-volume surgeons. In all cases, the interval betweenprimary surgery and revisional ARCR, degree of “acromial scuffing,” number of anchors, RCR technique, retear pattern, fatty infiltration,retear size, operating time, and clinical outcome were recorded. Results: During primary surgery, significantly more lateral anchors (p=0.004) were used, and the rate of use of the double-row repair technique was significantly higher (p<0.001) in the high- versus low-volume surgeon group. Moreover, the “cut-through pattern” was observedsignificantly more frequently among the cases treated by high- versus low-volume surgeons (p=0.008). The clinical outcomes after revisional ARCR were not different between the two groups. Conclusions Double-row repair during primary surgery and the cut-through pattern during revisional ARCR were more frequent in thehigh- versus low-volume surgeon groups. However, no differences in retear site or size, fatty infiltration grade, or outcomes were observedbetween the groups.