End of Clerkship Evaluation

NAME:  *Select Student Name Altheimer, Alicia Austin, Richard Bakker, Amanda Barfield, Andrew Bauman, John Becker, Amanda Betzle, Christopher Boucek, Lisa Canaday, Dian Chandra, Sidharth Cheatham, Terah Dawood, Moiz Day, Rachel Dodia, Neal Feller, Cathy Galanos, Kelly Grimm, Trenton Hagene, Michelle Haryani, Anand Henkle, Benjamin Hiatt, Elizabeth Jimenez, Monica Johnson, Kevin Juvinall, Douglas Keeler, Aisha Ken, Jonathan Ken, Kimberly Khan, Imran Koch, Craig Kulacz, Jeremy Leverenz, Ashley Malvik, Natalie Mathews, Dionna Mayfield, Allison McKenna, Katherine Meyer, Bria Michael, Alex Michaels, Jason Miedema, Christopher Miksanek, Zachary Miller, Peter Nester, William Parke, Jacob Patel, Raunak Patel, Sonal Raab, Joseph Rabideau, Amanda Rebeiro, Sumi Reid, Taylor Roloff, Carolyn Ros, Sara Rosenkrans, Daniel Ryan, Daniel Sadowski, Daniel Sanserino, Kathryne Schmucker, Drew Simon, Kevin Spencer, Lauren Swong, Michael Tennill, Robert Thompson, Kirk Urish, Ashley Varney, Brittany Varney, Jacob Wakid, Christopher Washington, Vance Weitzel, Laura Yanik, Susan Yoon, Kristopher Yu, Xin Zubairu, Josiah zzTest

Note:  Please include comments!!

WARDS ( select one): MMC     SJH

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

• Quality of resident teaching

• Quality of attending teaching

• Quality of feedback given

• Adequate number of patients?

• Variety of patients seen?

• Did you become part of the team?

Comments or Suggestions:

SUBSPECIALTY PRECEPTORSHIPS

Select Subspecialty Cardiology Endocrinology GI HemOnc ID Nephrology Pulmonology Rheumatology        

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

• Quality of Teaching

• Quality of Feedback Given

• Adequate Number of Patients?

• Variety of Patients Seen

• Organization of this Subspecialty

Comments or Suggestions:

Select Subspecialty Cardiology Endocrinology GI HemOnc ID Nephrology Pulmonology Rheumatology       

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

• Quality of Teaching

• Quality of Feedback Given

• Adequate Number of Patients?

• Variety of Patients Seen

• Organization of this Subspecialty

Comments or Suggestions:

Select Subspecialty Cardiology Endocrinology GI HemOnc ID Nephrology Pulmonology Rheumatology     

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

• Quality of Teaching

• Quality of Feedback Given

• Adequate Number of Patients?

• Variety of Patients Seen

• Organization of this Subspecialty

Comments or Suggestions:

CHAIRMAN'S WARD REPORT

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

*Select One Dr. Deckard Dr. Resch Dr. Steward Other Faculty

• Quality of faculty teaching and involvement

• Quality of feedback given

• Overall educational value of sessions

Comments OR SUGGESTIONS:

CLINICAL CASE QUESTION REPORT

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

• Educational value of these sessions

• To what degree did these sessions enhance your knowledge of how to put Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) into practice

Comments OR SUGGESTIONS:

WEEK 1

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

• Critical incident teaching session (anaphylaxis)

• Critical incident teaching session (pancreatitis)

• Sign-out case session

• Clinical Skills Teaching Session (Cardiovascular and Eye exams)

• Case review session

Comments OR SUGGESTIONS:

LOGBOOK

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Comments OR SUGGESTIONS:

CLINICAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

• Quality of faculty teaching -- Dr. Varney

• Quality of faculty teaching -- Dr. Constance

Comments OR SUGGESTIONS:

NOON SEMINARS

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

• Topic selection

• Quality of teaching

• Educational value of these sessions

• Quality of delivery format

Comments OR SUGGESTIONS:

SIMPLE CASES

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

• Topic selection

• Educational value of these sessions

• Quality of delivery format

Comments OR SUGGESTIONS:

Medical Decision making

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

• Were the clinical medical decision making sessions beneficial?

What are some suggestions you may have for the future?

NURSE EDUCATOR

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

• Quality of nurse educator as a resource

Comments OR SUGGESTIONS:

MENTORS

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

• Quality of mentor teaching

• Quality of mentor mentoring

• Quality of feedback given

• Educational value of these sessions

• To what degree did these sessions enhance your ability to focus on personal goals and areas for improvement?

Comments OR SUGGESTIONS:

GIM CLINIC

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

• Quality of attending teaching in gim clinic

• Quality of feedback given in gim clinic

• Adequate number of patients seen

• Variety of patients seen

• Organization of experience

Comments OR SUGGESTIONS:

OTHER SESSIONS

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

• Reflective writings

• Transitions of care experience

Comments OR SUGGESTIONS:

OTHER Comments OR SUGGESTIONS: