Qualitative project demonstrates that digital aids improve engagement and learning outcomes in surgical placements.
Aims Surgical placements are crucial for developing clinical skills, but students often struggle to focus their learning. Traditional approaches prioritise attendance over engagement. This qualitative project introduces QR code based digital aids that focus on orientation, core learning outcomes, and include a submission component to track student engagement during placement. Methods This project began with a pre-survey combining open-ended responses and Likert scale questions to identify challenges in surgical placements. Using this feedback, a resource aligned with curriculum outcomes was developed, tailored to various surgical specialities in a district general hospital. It was piloted with 3rd-year medical students starting their first long-term placement. A post-survey assessed its effectiveness in improving engagement, orientation, structured learning, and clinical skill development, with results measured using Likert scales and compared with the pre-survey. Results 92% of original pre-survey group submitted responses on the engagement component. The post-survey showed the following results as a mean of responses in each domain (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree): Overall Usefulness = 4.60, Preparation = 4.45, Structuring Learning = 4.55, Finding Tasks = 4.18, Communicating with Staff = 4.09, Orientation = 4.09, Engagement = 4.55. Conclusions The high submission rate of 92% for the engagement component suggests that students actively participated in the resource. Post-survey results indicate that the resource improved students' overall engagement, preparation, task structuring, and communication with staff. These findings suggest that digital aids, with built-in engagement tracking, can be a valuable tool in improving the quality of surgical education during clinical placements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mujahid et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: