Feedback Course Date: 8th and 9th June 2019

Course Date: 8th & 9th June 2019

Pre-course Information

• Very concentrated development.
• Parking info would have been helpful.
• Development very helpful.
• Development notes very helpful.

Range of Patients in clinical stations

• Great selection of neurology and cardiac cases.
• Excellent variety of cases.
• Wide range of patients with very interesting and good clinic signs.

Developmental station

• Really good approach explained for speech and language – often the least structured.
• Excellent demonstration of technique and presentation.
• More development stations would have been beneficial.
• Course instructors gave excellent tips and are very good!
• Good opportunity to drill in exam technique.
• Different ages.
• Excellent.
• More development station.

Neurology station

• Good variety of patients.
• Neuro very well explained.

Cardiovascular station

• Good variety with good clinical signs.
• Excellent cases and explanations of murmurs.  Group too big to listen to hearts!
• Lots of interesting causes of cardiac conditions – useful.
• Good examples of different murmurs.
• Some conflicting advice given.
• Confusing and some conflicting advice given on some patients.

Miscellaneous station

• Great approach taught to general examination – is difficult to know where to start.
• Variety of unexpected cases that helped us know how to approach them.
• Very good cases.
• Prems not explained.
• Good examples of different syndromes.
• Good.
• Super excellent.

Communication stations

• Great case selection – tricky but not too specific.
• Good explanation of important approach with teenagers.  Good cases. Groups far too large to allow discussion and to learn.
• Could have been better if groups smaller and more chance to practise.
• Super excellent.
• Good.

History taking

• Appreciate the extra developmental station.
• Help with structure would be good.
• No structure given, little time.

Video station

• Maybe just 25 not 30?
• More time on technique on interpreting – very rushed.
• Not enough time for discussion of results.
• More pics not videos, not like exam.

Feedback given

• A few stations did not have adequate time for full presentation by candidate.
• Not much time for feedback and did not get to do many cases due to big group (9 people!)
• OK

Any further comments for suggestions for improvement

• Smaller group sizes! Then would have more time to all listen to murmurs.  Appreciate it is difficult but some candidates had attended before.  Thank you, variety of cases and pathology is excellent.
• Really good and informative.  More history and communication.
• Very good, would be better to have less candidates.
• Really good range of patients but the groups were far too large.  We had 9 people so did not get to do many examinations/stations.  Should have said no to the last minute extra people.
• Very good course in general but the groups are way too big!  Not really given the chance to examine/present/do scenarios as much as I’d like.  Appreciate the change of groups.  Could even change between morning and afternoon but would have definitely appreciated smaller groups.
• Groups are quite large and difficult to have opportunity to practise.  Will be good to split groups in half.  Thank you.
• Training format according to exam for comms/history.
• Groups were large.
• I found the course very informative.  However I would have liked to practise presenting findings more.
• Very interesting patients and great to see so many different pathologies.  Thought there were a lot too many people in each group, a bit too rushed and not enough time to examine each.
• Thank you so much.
• More history stations.
• Really good, thank you.
• More developmental station.
• More feedback on technique would make this course even better though I think that would make it impossible to fit in all the patients and I would not want to reduce that.
• Instead of 2 days it should be 3 days.
• Occasionally examiners not watching examinations.
• Wide range of patients, thank you.
• Good mix of cases.  Perhaps some examiners could mark us a bit more closely.  Thank you.