Skip to main content
PMC home page
Annals of Medicine and Surgery logoLink to Annals of Medicine and Surgery
. 2016 Oct 24;12:8–17. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2016.10.004

Evaluating the educational environment of an international animal model-based wet lab course for undergraduate students

Michail Ch Sideris a,∗, Apostolos E Papalois b,1, Thanos Athanasiou c, Ioannis Dimitropoulos d, Korina Theodoraki e, Francois Sousa Dos Santos f, Georgios Paparoidamis g, Nikolaos Staikoglou g, Dimitrios Pissas h, Peter C Whitfield i, Alexandros Rampotas j, Savvas Papagrigoriadis k, Vassilios Papalois l, Georgios Zografos m, Georgios Tsoulfas g
PMCID: PMC5094680  PMID: 27830064

Abstract

Background

Essential Skills in the management of Surgical Cases – ESMSC is an International Combined Applied Surgical Science and Wet Lab course aimed at the undergraduate level. ESMSC combines interactive basic science workshops and case-based learning, with basic surgical training modules (BST) on Ex Vivo and In Vivo swine model. In Vivo Dissections include more advanced modules i.e. Abdominal Anatomy Dissections and Cardiac Transplant.

Aim

To evaluate the educational environment of a novel course, as well as to compare Medical students' perceptions across various groups.

Materials and Methods

83 Delegates from King's College London (KCL) and several Hellenic Medical Schools attended the ESMSC course. The DREEM inventory was distributed upon completion of the modules.

Results

The mean overall score for DREEM inventory was 148.05/200(99–196, SD = 17.90). Cronbach's Alpha value was 0.818, indicating good internal consistency of the data. Year 3/4 Students have a significantly positive “Perception of Learning”, when compared to Year 5/6 (36.43 vs. 33.75, p = 0.017). KCL Students have a more positive view of the course compared to their Greek counterparts (155.19 vs. 145.62/200, p = 0.034). No statistical significant difference was noted when comparing male vs. female students (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Students seem to positively rate the ESMSC educational environment. Junior as well as KCL students appear to be more enthusiastic. Further research should focus on the optimal strategy for early involvement and motivation of various students' groups in BST.

Keywords: Educational environment, Wet lab, Undergraduate, Basic surgical skills, Surgical education research

Highlights

  • •

    ESMSC is an International Surgical Science and Wet Lab course aimed at undergraduates.

  • •

    Students seem to positively rate the ESMSC educational environment.

  • •

    Year 3/4 Students have a significantly positive “Perception of Learning”, when compared to Year 5/6.

  • •

    KCL Students gave a more feedback on the course compared to their Greek counterparts.

  • •

    Further research should focus on involving and motivating students early in BST.

1. Introduction

The educational environment is considered to be a crucial parameter that reflects directly onto the students' satisfaction, academic aspirations and overall perception of well-being [1]. It is important to note that, most of the curricula are shifting toward a student-centered pattern, where evaluation of the educational environment has been possible through various tools, that aim to objectively measure various parameters [1], [2], [3]. Recent evolution in Medical Education, diversity in the personality of Medical Students, as well as occasional misinterpretation by teachers of students' perceptions regarding the educational environment [4], have underlined the need of effective evaluation of the latter [1]. Apart from the educational environment's role in students' learning [5], [6], [7], its continuous evolving character, sets the need for an objective, unbiased tool to assess the impact of various changes directly onto the educational process.

Various tools have been designed to assess educational environment [8], [9]. The Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure (DREEM) [10], [11], [12] is a validated 50-statement questionnaire, which is used to effectively evaluate the educational environment. The overall evaluation is based on the aggregate scores, as well as the 5 subscales, and many authors include and comment on each of the 50 statements individually [1], [13]. DREEM inventory has been used to evaluate various educational environments [1], [4], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], mainly in undergraduate curricula, as well as postgraduate training [30].

Although some studies question the 5 factor structure of DREEM [13], [31], Soemantri et al. [8] conducted a systematic review on various tools, and concluded that DREEM is the most comprehensive measure of the educational environment. Nevertheless, Miles et al. [1] notes in their systematic review, that despite DREEM being an effective tool, consensus on statistical analysis and interpretation of the finding s should be reached to avoid misconceptions.

Essential Skills in the Management of Surgical Cases – ESMSC [32] is an International Combined Applied Surgical Science and wet lab course aimed specifically at the undergraduate level. It combines basic science workshops (ABGs, ECG, Shock), case-based learning on various surgical cases with basic surgical skills (BST) training on ex vivo and in vivo swine modules. In Vivo Dissections involve various basic and more advanced modules on swine model. Delegates also have the chance to be actively involved in the Cardiac Explantation under bypass In Vivo experiment as well. Ex Vivo stations include basic suturing, fundamental laparoscopic skills (FLS), Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF) of long bone fractures, wound debridement and tendon repair. The unique component of ESMSC curriculum lies in the mixture of high-fidelity In Vivo SBL, with other wet or dry lab lower fidelity modules with Basic and Applied Surgical Science interactive workshops. It also offers a unique opportunity for exchange of ideas between various educational background delegates as well as faculty members and it involves, motivates and inspires students at an early stage to pursue a surgical career.

In the context of developing a novel, international, two-day course, involving intense basic, as well as more advanced skills-based training, we considered it essential to objectively evaluate the educational environment using DREEM questionnaire.

2. Aims

The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the overall educational environment of a novel international wet lab course (ESMSC). Additionally, we wanted to compare the overall and the subscale scores among different groups of students.

3. Materials and Methods

Delegates from the UK (King's College London), as well as Greek Medical Schools register their interest to attend the ESMSC course online (esmsc.gr). Selection of participants is performed via our online portal, based on CV criteria including number of publications, presentations in conferences etc. A relevant statement, where participants advocate their interest and motivation towards a surgical career, is attached to the application. The application, as well as the course is run in English, and good operational command of the language is mandatory. A panel of two senior faculty members independently assesses the applications. This is to assure that the best candidates are selected, while at the same time, homogeneity, in terms of previous exposure and background knowledge, is still maintained. This was performed on the basis to eliminate selection bias i.e. selecting only very competent students. With regards to the faculty members, all of them are proficient or native English speakers and comprise from junior to senior trainees as well as Consultants and Academics from the UK, Greece or other various countries from the EU and abroad. The ratio between delegates and faculty members is almost 1:1 to ensure highest quality teaching is assured.

Delegates were asked to fill the DREEM inventory anonymously, in the teaching room, immediately following completion of the ESMSC. Data on Demographics (Age and Sex), as well as Medical School and Year of Studies were recorded and demonstrated in Graph 1.

Graph 1.

Graph 1

Open in a new tab

Demographics of Sample used.

Reliability analysis, using Cronbach's Alpha coefficient, was performed to evaluate internal consistency of the DREEM. Acceptable level of internal consistency was considered if Cronbach's Alpha is between 0.5 and 0.7, and good level if above 0.7 [33]. Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate the level of agreement between measurements. ICC<0.2 is considered as poor agreement, 0.21–0.40 as fair, 0.61–0.80 as good and 0.81–1.0 as very good.

Scoring, as well as Interpretation of the DREEM inventory was based on the practical guide. A 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from Strongly Agree (SA, 4) to Strongly Disagree (SD, 0) was used for positive statements. With regards to negative statements (Questions 4, 8, 9, 17, 25, 35, 39, 48 and 50), the scale ranged from Strongly Agree (SA, 0) to Strongly Disagree (SD, 4).

The overall score, as well as the five subscale scores were used to evaluate the ESMSC educational environment. Subscale scores include “Registrars perception of Learning (RPoL)”, “Registrars Perception of Course Designers (RPoCD)”, “Registrars' Academic Self-Perception (RASP)”, “Registrars' Perception of Atmosphere (RPoA)” and “Registrars' Social Self Perceptions (RSSP)”.

3.1. Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis of our results was performed using IBM SPSS for Macintosh version 22 (Armonk, NY, IBM Corp.). Normality of distribution for was assessed based on Shapiro-Wilk test. Independent t-test associations were used to compare means in various groups (Year 3/4 vs. Year 5/6 Students, KCL vs. Greek Students, Male vs. Female, May 2015 vs. November 2015 cohorts). One-way ANOVA was performed to compare the mean scores between Year 3–6 Medical Students, as well as between students from various Universities. Statistical significant level was set at p = 0.05.

4. Results

89 delegates attended the course and 83 filled out the DREEM inventory anonymously (response rate 83/89, 93.2%). N = 46 had attended the course in May 2015 (55.4%), whereas N = 37(44.6%) in November 2015. 52 delegates (62.7%) were Male students and 31 (37.3%) female. The mean age was 23.38 years old (20–30, SD = 1.73) (Graph 1).

21 (25.3%) came from King's College London, and 62 (74.7%) from Hellenic Medical Schools. With regards to Hellenic Medical Schools, N = 15 (18.1%) were students from Athens Medical School, N = 5(6.0%) from Herakleion University, N = 3(3.6%) from Ioannina University, N = 7(8.4%) from Larisa University, N = 9(10.8%) from Patra University, N = 20(24.1%) from Thessaloniki University and N = 3(3.6%) from Alexandroupoli University (Graph 1).

Concerning the Year of Studies, N = 21 (25.3%) were Year 3 Students, N = 14 (16.9%) Year 4, N = 29(34.9%) Year 5 and N = 19 (22.9%) Year 6. In total, N = 35 (42.2%) were Year 3 or 4 and classified as Junior Medical Students, whereas N = 48 (57.8%) were Year 5 or 6 classified as Senior or Final Year Medical Students. In the UK clinical rotation starts at the 3rd Year, whereas in Greece, the equivalent Year is the 4th. What is more, UK MBBS is a 5 Year course, whereas in Greece the duration of the undergraduate studies is 6 years (Graph 1).

Overall Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient value was 0.818, which indicates good level of internal consistency for DREEM questionnaire. Cronbach's Alpha value for RPoL was 0.899, for RPoCD 0.766, for RASP 0.772, for RPoA 0.770, and for RSSP 0.812, which indicate good internal consistency for all the sub-scales. Overall ICC value was 0.818, which is deemed as very good level of agreement33. Shapiro-Wilk normality test showed normal distribution for overall and all subscale scores (p > 0.05) except RPoA (p = 0.014), though this was considered as normal using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (p = 0.20).

The mean overall score for the DREEM inventory was 148.05/200(99–196, SD = 17.90), which is classified as “More Positive than Negative” (Table 1). With regards to subscale mean scores, “Registrars' Perception of Learning” scored 34.88/48(23–48, SD = 5.01), which is interpreted as “A more positive perception”. “Registrars' Perception of Course Organizers” mean score was 33.89/44(21–44, SD = 4.70), which corresponds to “Moving in the right direction”. “Registrars' Academic Self Perception” scored 23.15/32(13–32, SD = 3.59) which is interpreted as “Feeling on the Positive Side”. “Registrars' Perception of Atmosphere” mean score was 36.73/48(17–47, SD = 4.93) which is interpreted as “A good feeling overall”. Finally, “Registrars' Social Self Perceptions” mean score was 19.28/28(12–27, SD = 2.95), which is classified as “Not too bad” (Table 2). Individual Question Scores are listed on Table 1.

Table 1.

Mean Scores for each Question (1–50).

Question N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. deviation
1 83 0.00 4.00 3.3855 0.71280
2 83 2.00 4.00 3.4578 0.61090
3 83 0.00 4.00 2.7108 0.86292
4 83 0.00 4.00 2.5301 1.01618
5 83 1.00 4.00 2.7952 0.61997
6 83 1.00 4.00 2.9518 0.71403
7 83 1.00 4.00 3.1928 0.75640
8 83 0.00 4.00 3.0120 1.01806
9 83 0.00 4.00 2.6988 1.04456
10 83 1.00 4.00 3.2289 0.70409
11 83 1.00 4.00 3.2169 0.68161
12 83 0.00 4.00 2.5060 1.11938
13 83 1.00 4.00 2.6265 0.86547
14 83 0.00 4.00 2.4458 1.20216
15 83 0.00 4.00 3.2892 0.83418
16 83 0.00 4.00 3.1446 0.78294
17 83 0.00 4.00 2.9759 0.99971
18 83 0.00 4.00 3.0602 0.75465
19 83 0.00 4.00 3.2892 0.84867
20 83 2.00 4.00 3.3133 0.53937
21 83 0.00 4.00 2.7349 0.91177
22 83 1.00 4.00 2.9880 0.86241
23 83 1.00 4.00 3.2530 0.62163
24 83 1.00 4.00 2.9518 0.88212
25 83 0.00 4.00 1.7590 1.03111
26 83 1.00 4.00 2.7590 0.79003
27 83 0.00 4.00 2.3253 0.97666
28 83 0.00 4.00 2.3012 1.28533
29 83 0.00 4.00 2.8193 0.79854
30 83 1.00 4.00 3.0120 0.75698
31 83 1.00 4.00 2.5904 0.91113
32 83 0.00 4.00 2.6747 0.95136
33 83 1.00 4.00 3.2771 0.61114
34 83 1.00 4.00 3.2530 0.55969
35 83 0.00 4.00 3.2892 0.89074
36 83 0.00 4.00 2.7711 0.68655
37 83 1.00 4.00 3.1084 0.58460
38 83 1.00 4.00 3.0723 0.71197
39 83 1.00 4.00 3.4699 0.73811
40 83 1.00 4.00 3.3253 0.58661
41 83 0.00 4.00 2.7831 0.91129
42 83 0.00 4.00 3.1446 0.76720
43 83 1.00 4.00 3.1807 0.66524
44 83 1.00 4.00 3.2651 0.64552
45 83 1.00 4.00 3.3253 0.66458
46 83 0.00 4.00 3.1807 0.88545
47 83 1.00 4.00 2.7229 0.88777
48 83 0.00 4.00 2.7108 0.89074
49 83 0.00 4.00 3.3133 0.67945
50 83 0.00 4.00 2.8554 0.98936
Total Score 83 99.00 196.00 148.04 17.90
Open in a new tab

Table 2.

Mean scores for each subscale.

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. deviation
Registrar's perception of learning 83 23.00 48.00 34.8795 5.00584
Registrars' perception of course organizers 83 21.00 44.00 33.8916 4.70343
Registrars' academic self perception 83 13.00 32.00 23.1566 3.59363
Registrars' perceptions of atmosphere 83 17.00 47.00 36.7349 4.92649
Registrars' social self perceptions 83 12.00 27.00 19.2771 2.94798
Open in a new tab

The minimum mean score was recorded for item 25 “The teaching over emphasizes factual learning” (mean = 1.76, 1–5, SD = 1.03), and the maximum for item 39 “The course organizers get angry in teaching sessions”, (mean = 3.46, 1.00–4.00, SD = 0.73) (Table 1).

Attempting a comparison between the May vs. the November Cohorts of Students, there was no statistical significant difference in the mean overall score nor in any of the sub-scale scores (p > 0.05 for all associations).

Comparing Year 3/4 vs. Year 5/6 Students there was no statistically significant difference in the overall DREEM inventory score, though it was higher for Year 3/4 Students (151.77 vs. 145.33, p = 0.114). However, there was a statistically significant higher score for Year 3/4 Students in terms of “Registrars' Perception of Learning” (36.43 vs. 33.75, p = 0.017), (Table 3). ANOVA analysis revealed that Year 3 students recorded the highest mean sub-scale and overall scores compared to any other group, and that there was an overall tendency for lower DREEM scores with advancing medical school year seniority, though this did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05) (Table 4).

Table 3.

Comparison between Year 3–4 vs. Year 5–6.

P value Mean Std. deviation Std. error mean
DREEM overall score Senior 0.114 145.3333 16.71963 2.41327
Junior 151.7714 19.01715 3.21449
Registrars' perception of learning Senior 0.017 33.7500 4.70174 0.67864
Junior 36.4286 5.06014 0.85532
Registrars' perception of course organizers Senior 0.260 33.3750 4.25578 0.61427
Junior 34.6000 5.23675 0.88517
Registrars' academic self perception Senior 0.287 22.7917 3.47611 0.50173
Junior 23.6571 3.74121 0.63238
Registrars' perceptions of atmosphere Senior 0.585 36.4792 4.87281 0.70333
Junior 37.0857 5.04900 0.85344
Registrars' social self perceptions Senior 0.303 18.9792 2.61330 0.37720
Junior 19.6857 3.34990 0.56624
Open in a new tab

Table 4.

ANOVA analysis – Year 3–6 Mean Overall and Subscale Scores.

N Mean Std. deviation Std. error 95% Confidence interval for mean
 Minimum Maximum
Lower bound Upper bound
DREEM overall score Year 3 21 152.7143 22.22418 4.84971 142.5980 162.8306 119.00 196.00
Year 4 14 150.3571 13.50560 3.60952 142.5592 158.1550 134.00 173.00
Year 5 29 145.8276 20.21504 3.75384 138.1382 153.5170 99.00 187.00
Year 6 19 144.5789 9.65698 2.21546 139.9244 149.2335 124.00 164.00
P value 0.345 148.0482 17.90006 1.96479 144.1396 151.9568 99.00 196.00
Registrars' perception of learning Year 3 21 36.8571 5.34121 1.16555 34.4259 39.2884 29.00 48.00
Year 4 14 35.7857 4.72601 1.26308 33.0570 38.5144 28.00 46.00
Year 5 29 34.2759 5.05609 0.93889 32.3526 36.1991 24.00 47.00
Year 6 19 32.9474 4.10249 0.94118 30.9700 34.9247 23.00 42.00
P value 0.069 34.8795 5.00584 0.54946 33.7865 35.9726 23.00 48.00
Registrars' perception of course organizers Year 3 21 33.9524 5.80927 1.26769 31.3080 36.5967 22.00 44.00
Year 4 14 35.5714 4.25557 1.13735 33.1143 38.0285 26.00 43.00
Year 5 29 33.7241 5.16096 0.95837 31.7610 35.6873 21.00 43.00
Year 6 19 32.8421 2.31572 0.53126 31.7260 33.9582 27.00 36.00
P value 0.201 33.8916 4.70343 0.51627 32.8645 34.9186 21.00 44.00
Registrars' academic self perception Year 3 21 24.0952 3.94848 0.86163 22.2979 25.8926 18.00 32.00
Year 4 14 23.0000 3.44182 0.91987 21.0127 24.9873 15.00 27.00
Year 5 29 22.8621 3.66181 0.67998 21.4692 24.2549 13.00 30.00
Year 6 19 22.6842 3.26688 0.74947 21.1096 24.2588 16.00 31.00
P value 0.584 23.1566 3.59363 0.39445 22.3719 23.9413 13.00 32.00
Registrars' perceptions of atmosphere Year 3 21 37.0000 5.51362 1.20317 34.4902 39.5098 28.00 46.00
Year 4 14 37.2143 4.45798 1.19145 34.6403 39.7882 30.00 46.00
Year 5 29 36.4828 5.94991 1.10487 34.2195 38.7460 17.00 47.00
Year 6 19 36.4737 2.63246 0.60393 35.2049 37.7425 33.00 43.00
P value 0.939 36.7349 4.92649 0.54075 35.6592 37.8107 17.00 47.00
Registrars' social self perceptions Year 3 21 20.0952 3.49149 0.76190 18.5059 21.6845 15.00 27.00
Year 4 14 19.0714 3.14922 0.84166 17.2531 20.8897 14.00 24.00
Year 5 29 18.8966 2.82014 0.52369 17.8238 19.9693 12.00 27.00
Year 6 19 19.1053 2.33083 0.53473 17.9818 20.2287 16.00 24.00
P value 0.533 19.2771 2.94798 0.32358 18.6334 19.9208 12.00 27.00
Open in a new tab

When comparing KCL vs. the 7 Hellenic Medical Schools, there seems to be a difference in the overall mean DREEM inventory score: 155.19 vs. 145.62/200 (p = 0.034). In terms of subscale scores, there was a statistically significant difference in the mean scores of “Registrars' Perception of Learning” (KCL vs. Greek, 37.9 vs. 33.85 respectively, p = 0.003), as well as in “Registrars Social Perceptions” (KCL vs. Greek, 20.43 vs. 18.89, p = 0.05) (Table 5). One-way ANOVA analysis confirmed that KCL students had the highest mean overall score (p = 0.002), as well as sub-scale scores (RPoL, p = 0.015, RPoCO, p = 0.073, RASP, p = 0.003, RPoA, p = 0.001, RSSP, p = 0.019), compared to the 7 Hellenic Medical School Students (Table 6).

Table 5.

KCL vs. Greek Students DREEM mean scores.

KCL vs. Greek medical school P value Mean Std. deviation Std. error mean
DREEM overall score International 0.061 155.1905 20.36816 4.44470
Greek 145.6290 16.46779 2.09141
Registrars' perception of learning International 0.003 37.9048 5.04881 1.10174
Greek 33.8548 4.59453 0.58351
Registrars' perception of course organizers International 0.326 34.9048 5.69126 1.24194
Greek 33.5484 4.31800 0.54839
Registrars' Academic Self Perception International 0.151 24.1905 3.80288 0.82986
Greek 22.8065 3.48222 0.44224
Registrars' perceptions of atmosphere International 0.185 38.0000 4.98999 1.08891
Greek 36.3065 4.87075 0.61859
Registrars' social self perceptions International 0.055 20.4286 3.15549 0.68859
Greek 18.8871 2.79405 0.35484
Open in a new tab

Table 6.

ANOVA Analysis of mean scores across various Universities.

N Mean Std. deviation Std. error 95% Confidence interval for mean
 Minimum Maximum
Lower bound Upper bound
DREEM overall score KCL 21 155.1905 20.36816 4.44470 145.9190 164.4620 119.00 196.00
Athens 15 147.4000 17.16641 4.43235 137.8936 156.9064 118.00 180.00
Herakleion 5 116.8000 19.54994 8.74300 92.5255 141.0745 99.00 145.00
Ioannina 3 148.0000 13.52775 7.81025 114.3952 181.6048 134.00 161.00
Larisa 7 146.2857 13.11125 4.95559 134.1598 158.4116 133.00 172.00
Patra 9 150.4444 11.53377 3.84459 141.5788 159.3101 132.00 173.00
Thessaloniki 20 150.3000 12.79432 2.86090 144.3121 156.2879 134.00 187.00
Alexandroupoli 3 135.3333 8.08290 4.66667 115.2543 155.4124 128.00 144.00
P value 0.002 148.0482 17.90006 1.96479 144.1396 151.9568 99.00 196.00
Registrars' perception of learning KCL 21 37.9048 5.04881 1.10174 35.6066 40.2030 31.00 48.00
Athens 15 33.6000 5.75450 1.48581 30.4133 36.7867 23.00 42.00
Herakleion 5 29.2000 3.42053 1.52971 24.9529 33.4471 26.00 35.00
Ioannina 3 35.6667 4.72582 2.72845 23.9271 47.4062 32.00 41.00
Larisa 7 33.8571 3.43650 1.29887 30.6789 37.0354 30.00 39.00
Patra 9 34.4444 3.67801 1.22600 31.6173 37.2716 28.00 40.00
Thessaloniki 20 34.9500 4.48946 1.00387 32.8489 37.0511 28.00 47.00
Alexandroupoli 3 32.0000 2.64575 1.52753 25.4276 38.5724 29.00 34.00
P value 0.015 34.8795 5.00584 0.54946 33.7865 35.9726 23.00 48.00
Registrars' perception of course organizers KCL 21 34.9048 5.69126 1.24194 32.3141 37.4954 22.00 44.00
Athens 15 33.2667 4.38287 1.13165 30.8395 35.6938 24.00 41.00
Herakleion 5 27.4000 5.94138 2.65707 20.0228 34.7772 21.00 35.00
Ioannina 3 35.3333 4.61880 2.66667 23.8596 46.8071 30.00 38.00
Larisa 7 33.8571 4.77593 1.80513 29.4401 38.2741 29.00 43.00
Patra 9 33.8889 3.14024 1.04675 31.4751 36.3027 30.00 40.00
Thessaloniki 20 35.0000 3.38728 0.75742 33.4147 36.5853 26.00 43.00
Alexandroupoli 3 32.0000 0.00000 0.00000 32.0000 32.0000 32.00 32.00
P value 0.073 33.8916 4.70343 0.51627 32.8645 34.9186 21.00 44.00
Registrars' academic self perception KCL 21 24.1905 3.80288 0.82986 22.4594 25.9215 18.00 32.00
Athens 15 23.8000 3.89505 1.00570 21.6430 25.9570 16.00 31.00
Herakleion 5 17.6000 3.43511 1.53623 13.3347 21.8653 13.00 21.00
Ioannina 3 23.6667 2.08167 1.20185 18.4955 28.8378 22.00 26.00
Larisa 7 23.5714 2.43975 0.92214 21.3150 25.8278 21.00 27.00
Patra 9 23.7778 2.48886 0.82962 21.8647 25.6909 20.00 27.00
Thessaloniki 20 23.2000 2.64774 0.59205 21.9608 24.4392 18.00 30.00
Alexandroupoli 3 18.3333 3.51188 2.02759 9.6093 27.0573 15.00 22.00
P value 0.003 23.1566 3.59363 0.39445 22.3719 23.9413 13.00 32.00
Registrars' perceptions of atmosphere KCL 21 38.0000 4.98999 1.08891 35.7286 40.2714 28.00 46.00
Athens 15 37.6667 4.79086 1.23700 35.0136 40.3198 29.00 46.00
Herakleion 5 27.4000 6.22896 2.78568 19.6657 35.1343 17.00 33.00
Ioannina 3 38.0000 3.60555 2.08167 29.0433 46.9567 34.00 41.00
Larisa 7 34.0000 3.21455 1.21499 31.0270 36.9730 31.00 40.00
Patra 9 37.2222 3.89801 1.29934 34.2260 40.2185 30.00 43.00
Thessaloniki 20 37.7000 3.38884 0.75777 36.1140 39.2860 33.00 47.00
Alexandroupoli 3 36.0000 3.60555 2.08167 27.0433 44.9567 32.00 39.00
P value 0.001 36.7349 4.92649 0.54075 35.6592 37.8107 17.00 47.00
Registrars' social self perceptions KCL 21 20.4286 3.15549 0.68859 18.9922 21.8649 15.00 27.00
Athens 15 18.5333 2.82506 0.72943 16.9689 20.0978 14.00 24.00
Herakleion 5 15.8000 3.03315 1.35647 12.0338 19.5662 12.00 20.00
Ioannina 3 17.0000 2.00000 1.15470 12.0317 21.9683 15.00 19.00
Larisa 7 20.0000 2.30940 0.87287 17.8642 22.1358 17.00 24.00
Patra 9 20.7778 2.99073 0.99691 18.4789 23.0767 17.00 27.00
Thessaloniki 20 19.0000 2.44949 0.54772 17.8536 20.1464 14.00 24.00
Alexandroupoli 3 18.6667 0.57735 0.33333 17.2324 20.1009 18.00 19.00
P value 0.019 19.2771 2.94798 0.32358 18.6334 19.9208 12.00 27.00
Open in a new tab

Male Medical Students reported a higher mean overall DREEM score vs. Female Students (149.29 vs. 145.97, p = 0.434), though it did not reach statistical significance. No other statistical significant differences were noted within the rest of the DREEM subscale evaluation.

5. Discussion

Educational environment is undoubtedly a vital parameter [1] that reflects directly onto the students' learning [5], [6], [7], [34]. Introducing ESMSC as a novel course [32] automatically generates the need for an objective assessment of students' perception on the actual educational environment. Furthermore, the ESMSC curriculum consists of a variety of in vivo and ex vivo hands-on modules, with basic science workshops and lectures, which is considered as a fairly novel combination of learning experience. High fidelity In Vivo Simulation Based Learning (SBL) is quite uncommon in the undergraduate level, and only a few studies have reported results from in vivo based SBL courses [35]. Besides that, ESMSC offers the advantage of a mixture between British and Hellenic undergraduate students. This characteristic generates the opportunity to assess the views of trainees from different educational backgrounds on similar educational aspects and training methods. While relative homogeneity of the students is achieved through the online selection portal (esmsc.gr) [32], ESMSC invites delegates at the level of participation in medical school clinical rotations, which results in a good variety of Year 3–6 Students. Thus, ESMSC could serve as an opportunity to attempt to reach conclusions on different views of students from diverse educational and stage-of-studies background, on a novel educational experience.

Despite a formal feedback report being an indicator of students' perception on an educational experience, there remains concern regarding any subjectivity; hence any conclusions could enclose bias. Therefore, choosing a formally validated tool [8], [9] could confirm our observations and import answers on our question of how do different students perceive the ESMSC learning experience. The DREEM inventory seems to be the most accurate tool [8] with multiple applications [10] in the undergraduate and postgraduate training [36], [37]. It has been generally used to assess several medical schools' profile [34], or to compare following newly implemented changes, the educational environment of various undergraduate curricula following newly implemented changes [1], [38], [39]. There have been studies which use DREEM to compare different medical education institutions, students at different training stage, as well as different participant gender.

In our study, ESMSC is considered to be “a more positive than negative” educational environment, with the mean overall score (148.05 ± 17.90), and compared to other reported scores in the literature [6], [7], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], it seems to be an encouraging finding that complements the students' excellent feedback report [32]. Moreover, subscale scores appear to confirm the overall good impression of participants, as reflected by “A more positive Perception of learning” (34.88, ±5.01), “Moving in the right direction” (33.89, 4.70), “Feeling on the Positive Side” (23.15, ±3.59) etc. This confirms our primary hypothesis, that the students perceive ESMSC as a valuable educational experience, and objectively improve their performance in various skills [32]. Another interesting finding is that, the vast majority of mean scores, including overall, are fairly close (0,11–2.96) towards the highest class, and this generates some more interest towards achieving excellence in SBL teaching.

While SBL is widely used in the higher postgraduate training [45], [46], [47], it is becoming all the more an integrated feature of various undergraduate curricula [35], [48], [49]. Our study confirms that students perceive positively this high fidelity SBL experience. There has been a discussion about integration of basic surgical skills (BSS) training as part of the undergraduate curriculum{Hamaoui, 2013 #146}, and this seems to be underlined by our delegates' perceptions on ESMSC course. As various Medical Schools are considering updating their curricula, this could be a hint that may to be taken into consideration, whilst setting up a novel strategy for the undergraduate education.

Comparing Year 3/4 vs. Year 5/6 Students, it seems that junior students l perceive the same learning experience in an overall more positive manner (Overall-151.77 vs. 145.33, p = 0.114, RPoL-36.42 vs. 33.75, p = 0.017), despite (or BECAUSE of) ESMSC involving more advanced In Vivo modules. Interestingly, ANOVA analysis shows that DREEM overall and sub-scale scores tend to decline as students are moving from Year 3 to the Final Year (Graph 2), although this did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05, Table 4). Demlroren et al. [50] reports similar patterns, where Year 3 students have the highest scores (Year 3 vs. Year 5, 123.65 vs.109.39). Al-Ayen et al. [51] also notes as well that Year 1 students tend to have the most positive scores compared to clinical year students. This is an interesting finding indicating that while students progress through their undergraduate studies, they potentially become less optimistic, and this should raise a question, whether more support is needed within the framework of the undergraduate curriculum in terms of continuous positive reinforcement and in particular towards graduation.

Graph 2.

Graph 2

Open in a new tab

Comparison of the mean Scores of DREEM inventory based on Year of Studies.

Junior students seem to be more enthusiastic, and despite the in vivo dissections' modules being more advanced, which could potentially raise difficulties in their learning process, they still seem to enjoy the course more. Furthermore, in our previous study [32], we demonstrated that junior students perform similarly in the objective assessments. Therefore, we should approach these findings with a more holistic view, and question whether more hands-on skills training is required at an earlier stage to promote learning, as well as motivate students towards a more positive attitude towards their learning process.

With regards to the comparison between KCL vs. Greek Students, UK students tend to perceive most of the aspects of the course in a more positive manner (“Excellent” vs. “more positive than negative, 155.19 vs. 145.62, p = 0.061). RPoL is perceived by UK students as “Teaching highly though of” vs. “A more positive perception” (37.9 vs. 33.85, p = 0.003). Those findings could either be explained by the fact that KCL students were overall more junior (Year 3, N = 15, 75.4%, Year 4, N = 2, 9.5%, Year 5 N = 4, 19.1%), or by the fact that SBL modules are a well-integrated part of UK MBBS courses, hence students are more familiar with its concepts, whilst in Greece this is evolving in the last few years. In addition to that, ESMSC is an intense course, which completely runs in English. Therefore, this may contribute to further distress for the Hellenic Students, whose undergraduate curriculum is taught in Greek. In a study examining undergraduate curriculum reforms, Finn et al. [24] noted that non-Irish students who did not speak English as their first language, had a more negative perception of the same education environment compared to Irish students.

ANOVA analysis concludes that KCL students have the most positive perception of the ESMSC learning environment (p = 0.002, Table 6), while there is a variation noted between the Greek Institutions. For instance, students from the Athens or Thessaloniki Medical School, which are the biggest, demonstrate a more positive view of the ESMSC learning environment, compared to ones from smaller Universities i.e. Alexandroupoli or Herakleion (147.4, 150.30 vs. 135.33, 116.8 respectively, p = 0.002). Despite the sample being pretty small to allow conclusions, it seems that the bigger Universities in Greece, may offer some more support to their students and hence, promote motivation in learning, as well as a more positive view for an SBL educational environment. However, there have been some interesting studies published, that students' perception is similar, despite different ranking of Universities [42], [52], [53].

On the other hand, comparing male vs. female perceptions of the ESMSC educational environment, despite a slightly statistically non-significant higher, overall score of male students (149.2 vs. 145.2, p = 0.434), there does not seem to be any difference in the gender sub-scale perception scores. Similar findings are reported by other DREEM studies [14], [51] in the literature.

Overall, despite the limitations of our sample, which comes from two consecutive cohorts of ESMSC course, our conclusions generate some interesting areas for future research. Firstly, as uniform standards for surgical training are implemented across Europe and the US, it would be interesting to compare students' view from more Countries and see if the overall perception on SBL training remains the same. Also, there still remains the question regarding what is the optimal stage for students to be involved in skills-based training, and how SBL can motivate students towards a surgical career. These points seem to be crucial, whilst Medical Schools' Boards seek for the optimal strategy to reform and modernize their curricula.

6. Conclusions

Medical Students seem to perceive the ESMSC educational environment in a positive way. Junior students tend to have a more positive view on the same learning experience compared to final year students, which should raise a question whether more SBL surgical teaching should be provided at an earlier stage, to promote motivation and learning. UK students seem to be more positively inclined towards on this novel learning environment. No significant difference was reported between male and female students' views on this course environment. These points should be taken into consideration, whilst various Medical Schools are reforming their new undergraduate training curricula.

Ethical approval

European and National Legislation, Directive 63/2010, PD 56/Αpril 2013.

Reference Number of the License: Michail Ch. Sideris and Apostolos Papalois 7095/05-11-2014 (revised 884 28/4/2015).

Sources of funding

Essential Skills in the Management of the Surgical Patient – ESMSC is funded by the Experimental Research Centre ELPEN, and it is provided for free to Medical Students around Europe.

Author contribution

Main Contribution.

Michail Ch. Sideris and Apostolos E. Papalois: Equal Contribution, Lead of the Project, and Designers of the course curriculum, Main Editors of the Manual. MS drafted and edited manuscript Statistical Analysis by MS.

Georgios Tsoulfas: Faculty of the Course, Lead for the In vivo Dissections (Anatomy Demonstration of the Abdomen), Conception and senior author of the Study.

Thanos Athanasiou, International lecturer during the course, edit of the manuscript, statistical analysis feedback.

Ioannis Dimitropoulos, International Lecturer during course, edit of language of the manuscript.

Korina Theodoraki: Faculty Member, literature search and editing of the discussion part of the manuscript.

Peter C. Whitfield, International Lecturer During Course, senior advisor of the manual.

Alexandros Rampotas, Francois Sousa Dos Santos Members of the faculty.

Dimitrios Pissas, International advisory Committee of the ESMSC course.

Savvas Papagrigoriadis: Senior Advisor of the Course Curriculum and Manual.

Vassilios Papalois: Senior Advisor of the Course Curriculum and Manual.

Georgios Zografos: Senior Advisor of the Course Curriculum and Manual, Lead of the Scientific Committee of the Course.

Georgios Paparoidamis, Nikolaos Staikoglou, medical students who set up promotion and smooth run of the course, data collection and assistants to senior assessors. GP has contributed with GT to the protocol.

Conflicts of interest

No conflict of interest.

Guarantor

Michail Ch. Sideris, Apostolos E. Papalois.

Manual of the course

Essential Skills in the Management of Surgical Cases – ESMSC, Scientific Publications Parisianou S.A., ISBN: 978-960-583-063-2.

Place of the study

Experimental Research Centre ELPEN 95 Marathonos Av., 19009, Pikermi Email: apapalois@elpen.gr.

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to: Professor Shakila Thangaratinam (Professor of Maternal and Perinatal Health, Queen Mary University London) for offering feedback on the manuscript. Also to: Experimental Research Centre ELPEN Faculty. We would like to thank all the Staff of the E.R.C. ELPEN and especially Georgios Stagias – Felasa C and Nikolaos Psychalakis – Felasa C and the rest of the Medical Students' Committee, Ismini Tsagkaraki Efstratia Georgopoulou Stefanos Karamaroudis.

Contributor Information

Michail Ch. Sideris, Email: mchsideris@gmail.com, m.sideris@qmul.ac.uk.

Apostolos E. Papalois, Email: apapalois@elpen.gr.

Thanos Athanasiou, Email: t.athanasiou@imperial.ac.uk.

Ioannis Dimitropoulos, Email: ioannis.dimitropoulos@nhs.net.

Korina Theodoraki, Email: korinatheodoraki@gmail.com.

Francois Sousa Dos Santos, Email: francois.santos@doctors.org.uk.

Georgios Paparoidamis, Email: gpaparoidamis@gmail.com.

Nikolaos Staikoglou, Email: nstaikoglou@gmail.com.

Dimitrios Pissas, Email: dpissas@nhs.net.

Peter C. Whitfield, Email: peter.whitfield@nhs.net.

Alexandros Rampotas, Email: al_exis@windowslive.com.

Savvas Papagrigoriadis, Email: spapagrigoriadis@nhs.net.

Vassilios Papalois, Email: v.papalois@imperial.ac.uk.

Georgios Zografos, Email: gzografo@med.uoa.gr.

Georgios Tsoulfas, Email: tsoulfasg@gmail.com.

References

  • 1.Miles S., Swift L., Leinster J. The dundee Ready education environment measure (DREEM): a review of its adoption and use. Med. Teach. 2012;(9):34. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.668625. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hammond M., O'Rourke M., Kelly M., Bennett D., O'Flynn S. A psychometric appraisal of the DREEM. BMC Med. Educ. 2012;12:2. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-12-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Zawawi H., Elzubeir M. Using DREEM to compare graduating students' perceptions of learning environments at medical schools adopting contrasting educational strategies. Med. Teach. 2012:34. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.656747. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Miles S., Leinster J. Comparing staff and student perceptions of the student experience at a new medical school. Med. Teach. 2009;31(6):539. doi: 10.1080/01421590802139732. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dimoliatis I.D.K., Vasilaki E., Anastassopoulos P., Ioannidis J.P.A., Roff S. Validation of the Greek translation of the dundee Ready education environment measure (DREEM) Educ. health (Abingdon, Engl. 2010;23(1):348. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Whittle S.R., Whelan B., Murdoch-Eaton D.G. DREEM and beyond; studies of the educational environment as a means for its enhancement. Educ. health (Abingdon, Engl. 2007;20(1):7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bakhshialiabad H., Bakhshi M., Hassanshahi G. Students' perceptions of the academic learning environment in seven medical sciences courses based on DREEM. Adv. Med. Educ. Pract. 2015;6:195. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S60570. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Soemantri D., Herrera C., Riquelme A. Measuring the educational environment in health professions studies: a systematic review. Med. Teach. 2010;32(12):947–952. doi: 10.3109/01421591003686229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nishigori H., Nishigori M., Yoshimura H. DREEM, PHEEM, ATEEM and STEEM in japanese. Med. Teach. 2009;31(6):560. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Roff S. The Dundee Ready Educational Environment Measure (DREEM)–a generic instrument for measuring students' perceptions of undergraduate health professions curricula. Med. Teach. 2005;27(4):322. doi: 10.1080/01421590500151054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Roff S., McAleer S. Robust DREEM factor analysis. Med. Teach. 2015;37(6):602. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.970992. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Roff S., McAleer S. Robust DREEM factor analysis. Med. Teach. 2015;37(6):602–603. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.970992. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yusoff M.B. Psychometric properties of DREEM in a sample of Malaysian medical students. Med. Teach. 2012;34(7):595. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.675104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Abraham R., Ramnarayan K., Vinod P., Torke S. Students' perceptions of learning environment in an Indian medical school. BMC Med. Educ. 2008;8:20. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-8-20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Aghamolaei T., Fazel I. Medical students' perceptions of the educational environment at an iranian medical sciences university. BMC Med. Educ. 2010;10:87. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-10-87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Al-Hazimi A., Al-Hyiani A., Roff S. Perceptions of the educational environment of the medical school in king abdul aziz University,Saudi Arabia. Med. Teach. 2004;26(6):570. doi: 10.1080/01421590410001711625. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Al-Hazimi A., Zaini R., Al-Hyiani A. Educational environment in traditional and innovative medical schools: a study in four undergraduate medical schools. Educ. health (Abingdon, Engl. 2004;17(2):192. doi: 10.1080/13576280410001711003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Al-Naggar A., Abdulghani M., Osman T. The Malaysia DREEM: perceptions of medical students about the learning environment in a medical school in Malaysia. Adv. Med. Educ. Pract. 2014;5:177. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S61805. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Andalib M.M., Malekzadeh M.M., Agharahimi Z. Evaluation of educational environment for medical students of a tertiary pediatric hospital in tehran, using DREEM questionnaire. Iran. J. Pediatr. 2015;25(5) doi: 10.5812/ijp.2362. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bakhshi H., Bakhshialiabad M.H., Hassanshahi G. Students' perceptions of the educational environment in an iranian medical school, as measured by the dundee Ready education environment measure. Bangladesh Med. Res. Counc. Bull. 2014;40(1):36. doi: 10.3329/bmrcb.v40i1.20335. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bassaw B., Roff S., McAleer S. Students' perspectives on the educational environment, faculty of medical sciences. Trinidad. Med. Teach. 2003;25(5):522. doi: 10.1080/0142159031000137409. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Cocksedge T., Taylor C.M. The National Student Survey: is it just a bad DREEM? Med. Teach. 2013;35(12) doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2013.835388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Doshi D., Reddy B.S., Karunakar P., Deshpande K. Evaluating Student's perceptions of the learning environment in an indian dental school. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR. 2014;8(11) doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/9901.5128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Finn Y., Avalos G., Dunne F. Positive changes in the medical educational environment following introduction of a new systems-based curriculum: DREEM or reality? Curricular change and the Environment. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2014;183(2):253. doi: 10.1007/s11845-013-1000-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Jeyashree K., Patro B.K. The potential use of DREEM in assessing the perceived educational environment of postgraduate public health students. Med. Teach. 2013;35(4):339. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.737058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Khatib M., Soukup B., Boughton O., Amin K., Davis C.R., Evans D.M. Plastic surgery undergraduate training: how a single local event can inspire and educate medical students. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2015;75(2):208–212. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Park K.H., Park J.H., Kim S. Students' perception of the educational environment of medical schools in Korea: findings from a nationwide survey. Korean J. Med. Educ. 2015;27(2):117. doi: 10.3946/kjme.2015.27.2.117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Payne K., Glaspie T. Associations between baccalaureate nursing students' perceptions of educational environment and HESI scores and GPA. Nurse Educ. Today. 2014;34(6) doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.10.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Shehnaz S.I., Sreedharan J. Students' perceptions of educational environment in a medical school experiencing curricular transition in United Arab Emirates. Med. Teach. 2011;33(1) doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2011.530312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.de R.G., Vieira J.E., Schonhorst L. Psychometric properties of the dundee Ready educational environment measure (DREEM) applied to medical residents. Med. Teach. 2005;27(4):343. doi: 10.1080/01421590500046387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jakobsson U., Danielsen N., Edgren G. Psychometric evaluation of the dundee Ready educational environment measure: swedish version. Med. Teach. 2011;33(5) doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2011.558540. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sideris M., Papalois A., Tsoulfas G. Developing an international combined applied surgical science and wet lab simulation course as an undergraduate teaching model. Biomed. Res. Int. 2015;2015:463987. doi: 10.1155/2015/463987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Yusoff M.S.B. Stability of DREEM in a sample of medical students: a prospective study. Educ. Res. Int. 2012;2012:5. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Miles S., Leinster J. Medical students' perceptions of their educational environment: expected versus actual perceptions. Med. Educ. 2007;41(3):265. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2007.02686.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Drosdeck J., Carraro E., Arnold M. Porcine wet lab improves surgical skills in third year medical students. J. Surg. Res. 2013;184(1):19–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2013.06.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kavukcu E., Burgazli K.M., Akdeniz M. Family medicine and sports medicine students' perceptions of their educational environment at a primary health care center in Germany: using the DREEM questionnaire. Postgrad. Med. 2012;124(5):143. doi: 10.3810/pgm.2012.09.2585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kelly M., Bennett D., O'Flynn S. General practice: the DREEM attachment? Comparing the educational environment of hospital and general practice placements. Educ. Prim. Care Off. Publ. Assoc. Course Organ. Natl. Assoc. GP Tutors World Organ. Fam. Dr. 2012;23(1):34. doi: 10.1080/14739879.2012.11494068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Edgren G., Haffling A.-C., Jakobsson U., McAleer S., Danielsen N. Comparing the educational environment (as measured by DREEM) at two different stages of curriculum reform. Med. Teach. 2010;32(6) doi: 10.3109/01421591003706282. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tokuda Y., Goto E., Otaki J. Undergraduate educational environment, perceived preparedness for postgraduate clinical training, and pass rate on the National Medical Licensure Examination in Japan. BMC Med. Educ. 2010;10:35. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-10-35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Khan J.S., Tabasum S., Yousafzai U.K., Fatima M. DREEM on: validation of the dundee Ready education environment measure in Pakistan. JPMA. J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 2011;61(9):885. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Mohd S.N., Rogayah J., Hafizah A. A study of learning environments in the kulliyyah (faculty) of nursing, international islamic university Malaysia. Malays. J. Med. Sci. MJMS. 2009;16(4):15. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Varma R., Tiyagi E., Gupta K. Determining the quality of educational climate across multiple undergraduate teaching sites using the DREEM inventory. BMC Med. Educ. 2005;5(1):8. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-5-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Arzuman H., Yusoff M.B., Chit S.P. Big sib students' perceptions of the educational environment at the school of medical sciences, universiti sains Malaysia, using dundee Ready educational environment measure (DREEM) inventory. Malays. J. Med. Sci. MJMS. 2010;17(3):40. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Vaughan B., Carter A., Macfarlane C., Morrison T. The DREEM, part 1: measurement of the educational environment in an osteopathy teaching program. BMC Med. Educ. 2014;14:99. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Burden C., Fox R., Hinshaw K., Draycott T.J., James M. Laparoscopic simulation training in gynaecology: current provision and staff attitudes - a cross-sectional survey. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2015:1–7. doi: 10.3109/01443615.2015.1060199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gardner K., Scott J., Pedowitz A. Best practices across surgical specialties relating to simulation-based training. Surgery. 2015;158(5):1395. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2015.03.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Dunkin B., Adrales G.L., Apelgren K., Mellinger J.D. Surgical simulation: a current review. Surg. Endosc. 2007;21(3):357–366. doi: 10.1007/s00464-006-9072-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Hamaoui K., Sadideen H., Saadeddin M., Onida S., Hoey W., Rees J. Is it time for integration of surgical skills simulation into the United Kingdom undergraduate medical curriculum? A perspective from king's college london school of medicine. J. Educ. Eval. Health Prof. 2013;vol. 10:10. doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2013.10.10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Acton D. The evolving role of simulation in teaching surgery in undergraduate medical education. Surg. Clin. North Am. 2015;95(4):739. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2015.04.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Demirören M., Palaoglu O., Kemahli S., Ozyurda F., Ayhan I.H. Perceptions of students in different phases of medical education of educational environment: ankara university faculty of medicine. Med. Educ. online. 2008;13:8. doi: 10.3885/meo.2008.Res00267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Al-Ayed I.H., Sheik S.A. Assessment of the educational environment at the College of medicine of king saud university, riyadh. East. Mediterr. health J. = La revue de santé de la Méditerranée Orient. = al-Majallah al-ṣiḥḥīyah li-sharq al-mutawassiṭ. 2008;14(4):953. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bennett D., Kelly M., O'Flynn S. Are the bigger hospitals better: DREEM on? Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2010;179(4):515. doi: 10.1007/s11845-010-0551-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.McKendree J. Can we create an equivalent educational experience on a two campus medical school? Med. Teach. 2009;31(5) doi: 10.1080/01421590802516822. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of Medicine and Surgery are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES