Educational Referent in University Hospital

Philippe BARRIEREMaître de Conférence – Praticien Hospitalier

Chirurgie Maxillo-Faciale

Introduction

• Created in Strasbourg in 2007• Follows from hospital organization– Clinical departments combination– “Pôles”

Referent’s role

• Organization and coordination of:– Theoretical education– Clinical medical students training courses in the

clinical departments

• Educational team– Fully qualified teachers: Professor, Master of

Conference– Temporary teachers: Assistants

Difficulties

• Recent audit of the referent’s function• Email questionnaire– 36 questions• Yes/No• Simple or multiple choice response

– Free comments

Results and discussion

• Response rate: 50%– 11 / 22

• Demographic data– 10 Professors– 1 “Master of conference”

Need of expertise?

Naming modalities

• The only volunteer: 7/11– Among them One “named volunteer”

– Means: Unrecognized function• Content• Means of action

Referent’s training

• IU Diploma in Medical Pedagogy: 7/11

• How referents feel about trainng to the function:– 1/11 name the Medical Pedagogy Diploma– 10/11 declare no specific training• Unrecognized function• New lecture in the Medical Pedagogy Diploma

Geographical data

• One referent for 5 departments (2-7)– 7 poles are monodisciplinary ones– 4/11 poles made of adjoining departments– 2/11 poles different buildings in the same site– 3/11 poles different sites

• Geography may reduce contacts in the educational team

Educational team ?• Mean workforce: 12 members• Professors 6 (2-7)• Master of conference 1 (0-3)• Assistants 6 (2-10)

– Geographical scattering– Hierarchy relationships– Educational vocation vs obligation

Recognition of the referent

• Among the pole’s teachers– Yes 4/11– May impede the function

– Need of communication between referent and the educational team

Recognition of the referent

• By the administration of Medical Faculty– Yes 9/11– Problem when referent ≠ head of department• Information still destinated to head of department

• Need of the better communication from the Faculty– Mailing list ?– Annual meeting of referents ?

Recognition of the referent

• By the students: 4/11 feel recognized

– Bad public exposure of the function– Students are posted in a department, not in a pole

– Need of specific meeting between referent and students• Create a true pedagogical relationship• Ameliorate problems recognition

Referent / teachers interactions

• 6/11: no interactions• Interaction subjects:– Planning and logistics: 4/11– Teaching program: 3/11– Technics in pedagogy: 2/11

• Administration tasks > educational action

Conclusion of the audit• Better primary training– IU Diploma with specific lecture on the “referent”

• Ameliorate public exposure of the referent– Reinforce the educational team– Ameliorate educational problem recognition

• Improve the communication– In the educational team– Between Faculty and referents