Health Sciences Student Experience Survey
Summary of findings Thursday 9th June 2016
Nadia D’Alton Director Health Sciences Programme office School of Medicine
Background • Purpose of the Survey: – Measure the level of satisfaction with nonacademic aspects of the student Experience in the School of Medicine – Get data to help inform decisions in relation to improving the overall student experience
School of Medicine - Student Experience Group • • • • • • • • • •
Ms Nadia D’Alton: Chair Dr Stuart Bund: Nominated Academic by programme board Dr Jonathan McNulty: Nominated Academic by programme board Dr Claire Lacey PMC: Nominated by programme Board – overseas campus Mr Adam Tattersall: Nominated Educational Technologist Ms Carl Lusby: Nominated Student Advisor Dr Sandra Tighe (Student Health): Nominated Student Health Representative Ms Ruth Harrison (Registry): Nominated Registry Representative Mr Diarmuid Stokes (Health Sciences Library): Nominated College Liaison Librarian Ms Therese Herlihy : Representative from Hospital site managing Clinical Programmes (Radiography) • Ms Stephanie Begley: Representative from Hospital site managing Clinical Programmes (Medicine) • Ms Judy Farrell: Programme Office • Mr Kerry Iwa: Programme office • • • •
Ms Sharon Whitty: GEM 2 student Ms Lie Le Lau: PMC stage 2 Ms Caoimhe Kirby: BHLS stage 2 Mr Liam Sharkey: Medicine Stage 2
School of Medicine - Student Experience Group • Consultation with Key Heads of Units and Staff within the School and UCD
• Dr David Foster and Mr Mark Cumisky: Careers Office • Ms Fiona Sweeney – Access and Disability Centre • Mr Seamus Shaw and Ms Ciara Acton – IT services • Mr Dominic O’Keeffe – Director of Student Centre • Mr Aidan Grannell and Ms Liz Dunne – Estates Services • Ms Maura McGinn- President’s Office
Timeline – Student Experience Survey
Consult with Survey stakeholders and survey design
November 2014 to June 2015
Finalise the survey
Launch of the survey
Analysis of the Survey
Action plan
June 2015 to October 2015
November 2015
December 2015 – ongoing
June 2016 – ongoing
Survey Methodology The survey was written and compiled by 2015-2016 Committee members. The survey was communicated to students in the following ways:
• • • • •
Members of the Student Experience Group Class representatives and peer mentors Targeted emails to all students Posters and flyers Academic reminders (slide at the end of lectures)
Survey Design 99 questions Around 4 main Headings: • Demographic • Facilities • Support Services • Engagement Breakdown of questions: (Approx: 1/3 of each) Quantitative questions (e.g. gender) Likert questions scaled from 5 (very good) to 1 (very poor) Qualitative comments in order to solicit feedback and suggestions feedback and suggestions.
Survey Analysis • Survey administration: SurveyMonkey • Data management: Microsoft Excel and SPSS • Variables grouped into different themes (~25) • Quantitative data: Summarized using Pivot Tables
• Likert data: converted to numerical values and mean calculated • Qualitative data: Free text comments categorized into different themes.
Response Rate
2110 Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students invited
Sources: Health Sciences Programme Office - student registration as of November 2015
Response Rate
2110 Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students invited
1212 responses
Sources: Health Sciences Programme Office - student registration as of November 2015
Response Rate
2110 Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students invited
1212 responses (57.4%) Sources: Health Sciences Programme Office - student registration as of November 2015
Demographics: Total student invitees (N=2110) Undergraduates
Postgraduates
feedback and suggestions. • 1693 invited • 1054 responded • 62.2% of invited UGs
• 417 invited • 119 responded • 28.5% of invited PGs
Undeclared • 39 additional respondents did not declare either UG or PG Source Health Sciences Programme Office Registration of Students as of November 2015
Demographics
N=1212 (All respondents)
87%
Gender
Female
39% 61%
Male 9.8% Undergraduate
87.6%
Postgraduate
3.2% Undeclared
Student category
22.8%
Full Time
International
6.7%
5.3%
0.8%
0.1%
Mature
Part Time
online/Blended Learning
Visiting
Demographics
N=1054 (Undergraduates)
Undergraduate Programme
44.6%
25% 12.6%
9.40%
7.00% 1.4%
Medicine
26.2%
Medicine Graduate Entry
Medicine UCD Penang
Radiography
Biomedical Health & Life Sciences
Physiology
7.3%
8%
5th Year
6th Year
Stage of study (All programmes) 22.9%
21.8% 13.8%
1st Year
2nd Year
3rd Year
4th Year
Demographics
N=119 (Postgraduates) Postgraduate Programmes
26.9% 16.8% 12.6%
12.6%
10.9%
8.4%
4.2% Master of Science
PhD
Graduate Certificate
Graduate Diploma
MSc Medicine
Doctor of Medicine
3.4%
2.5%
Undeclared Professional University Certificate Diploma
1.7% Higher Diploma
Postgraduate Majors 27.7% 21.8% 15.1% 9.2%
Clinical & Translational Research
Diagnostic Imaging
Emergency Medical Science
Forensic & Legal Medicine
8.4%
Healthcare Informatics
6.7%
Undeclared
4.2% Medicine & Medical Specialties
4.2%
2.5%
Other (please Psychotherapy specify)
Results
Likert Scale – Summary of findings >50 responses Likert Scale: 5: Very good 4: Good 3: Average 2: Poor 1: Very poor Used to rate facilities and student supports. Mean score compared to Likert scale.
Facilities Student Centre Facilities Teaching Spaces - Belfield Social Areas (all sites) Accommodation Catering Commute - Belfield Commute - Clinical Sites
N responses 1081 1016 1046 154 993 798 122
Mean score 4.18 4.07 3.82 3.75 3.57 3.52 3.04
Student support Access and Disability Student Adviser IT Services Admin Support- Programme Office Student Union Admin Support-Clinical Sites Library CopiPrint Communication Rate Career Centre Health Service Supports at Clinical Placement
N responses 69 142 931 154 860 94 1002 903 909 159 800 286
Mean score 4.36 4.19 3.99 3.93 3.93 3.84 3.82 3.82 3.88 3.71 3.62 3.46
Facilities
Student Centre Facilities
HSPO
Mean = 4.18, N responses = 1081 Facility Swimming pool Gym Pharmacy Cinema Sports Halls Catering
Mean 4.56 4.53 4.30 4.12 4.12 3.53
N Responses 566 891 854 482 720 926
Student Centre Comments N=76 6.7
5.6 Catering Gym
11.1
Other 16.7
60.0
Facility Pharmacy
The cost of food in the university is very high and the quality is quite poor. Also there are no facilities for students to use a microwave to eat homemade food”.
“Gym facilities are good but staff often don't allow students in at certain times of the day because it is too full of paying private members. As a university gym I think it should prioritise students over non-members”.
Catering:
Too Expensive (27.8%) More Variety (13.3%) Halal (11.1%)
Gym:
More access to gym (10%) Small size (3.3%)
Teaching Space – Belfield
HSPO
Mean = 4.07, N responses = 1016 Area Practical Labs Overall Experience Lecture Rooms Computer Labs WiFi
Mean
N Responses
4.28 4.18 4.08 4.01 3.89
935 1008 1005 973 1000
3.0 5.4
HSC Teaching facilities 1.8
Lecture rooms WiFi
41.7
23.8
Computer Labs Practical labs
Undefined
“The technology (projectors and screens) are excellent, but the seating arrangements of the lecture theatres are cumbersome and very uncomfortable relative to the universities I have visited.
24.4
Health Science centre
N=140 Qualitative: N=140
“The wifi has very limited reach, does not work well when many students are on the network, and don't extend outside the building (I'm comparing to my previous schools where all outdoor areas within the limits of the University were covered”
Lecture rooms: Limited sitting space (18.5%)
“When computer labs are being used for classes there is a lack of computing facilities for other students”
Computer labs: Limited access (12.5%)
WiFi: Limited coverage (22%)
Social Areas Mean = 3.82, N responses = 1046 Area
Mean N Responses
SVUH
4.19
295
MMUH
3.96
283
Health Sciences
3.76
1035
Social Areas comments Health Science Centre
18.0
MMUH
9.8 9.8
62.3
“The new res room in SVUH is fantastic. It is a real asset as a student. “ “Mater area getting better as the year goes on. Very grateful “ “The health science social area has very limited seating for the number of individuals using it
SVUH Undefined
Qualitative: N=61 HSC: More sitting/table space (23%) SVUH: Complimentary of Res room (8.2%) MMUH: Complimentary of social area (3.3%)
Student Supports
Access Centre / Disability
HSPO
Mean = 4.36, N responses = 69 Services utilized by ~6% of respondents Area Quality of response Speed of Response Ease of access to service Academic support received Exam supports received • Qualitative: N=2
Mean 4.48 4.40 4.38
N Responses 67 67 66
4.33 4.27
52 48
“It is not advertised well enough or widely enough exactly who can use these services or what it is there for. It wasn't until my 4th year in UCD that I started using the service and I could have used it from 1st year. The alternate exam centre and the other services have been a great help and relief for me and if I had been using them from day 1 in UCD I think I lot of the difficulties I encountered could have been avoided.”
Access Centre/Disability support on clinical placements Area Mean N Responses Nominated Disability 3.69 52 support person Reasonable 3.53 50 accommodations in work placement Preparation for work 3.50 51 placement Work placement needs 3.29 50 assessment “I think the access centre provides amazing help and support to students ”
Library Services
HSPO
Mean = 3.82, N responses = 1002 Area Quality of customer service from library staff Ease of OneSearch in finding books/articles Range of electronic resources Range of printed resources Quality of study environment Range of online tutorials and guides Space for group work Sufficient access to study spaces
Mean
N Responses
4.17
899
4.10
885
4.02
887
3.99
867
3.81
975
3.73 3.65
741 947
3.03
973
Area Use of electronic resources Use of print resources Use of EndNote
N Responses
3.98
698
3.92 3.76
693 451
Qualitative data: N=12
Library training comments 8.3
IT 8.3 33.3
8.3 16.7
“Its very difficult to find spaces in the health science library as non medical people use it. I believe this is unfair”
Mean
25
Training received Electronic resource Study space
Student Health Service
HSPO
Mean = 3.62, N responses = 800 Area
Mean
N Responses
Sensitivity Quality of service Range of services offered Opening Hours Value for money Waiting time
3.87 3.85 3.82 3.64 3.51 3.13
773 786 752 789 767 792
Student Health Service comments 5.8 3.8 7.7 32.7 15.4 15.4
“Nurse did not know how to draw blood. Waited over an hour after my original appointment time. Delay in updating my records after health clearance was done. "
“I have had to wait for over an hour after my scheduled appointment time. I think the doctor should be 10 euro maximum”
19.2
Waiting time Staff Service provided Screening Price Booking sys Undefined
Qualitative: N=49 Waiting time: Appointment delays (28.8%)
Communication
HSPO
Mean = 3.88, N responses = 909 Communication Rate Area
Mean
Email BlackBoard page Facebook Phone Text Twitter Other
4.26 3.89 3.22 3.08 2.92 2.91 2.88
50.5% N Responses 17% 13.2% 10.3% 7.5% 907 0.9% 0.6% 870 287 282 242 188 Qualitative data: N=29 105 Emails: Too many emails (27.6%)
Communication Rate 6.9 Emails 13.8
37.9
41.4
Preferred communication N=913
Blackboard Undefined Social Media
“Too many emails! Their importance is dwarfed by the frequency. Emailing both registered addresses is also very annoying”. Blackboard: Inefficient use (34.5%) “I feel like there are so many health science announcements on blackboard that they get lost”
HSPO
Supports in Clinical placements Mean = 3.46, N responses = 286 18.5
SVUH
45.1
MMUH
36.4
Regional
SVUH Academic Staff Programme Office Admin Support Health Services Student Adviser Library Facilities
MMUH
Regional
Rating
Responses
Rating
Responses
Rating
Responses
3.69 3.60 3.48 3.43 3.35 3.54
129 127 128 127 126 129
3.87 3.51 3.98 3.28 3.36 3.34
104 104 104 102 103 104
3.49 3.37 3.25 3.23 3.02 2.68
53 53 53 53 53 53
Qualitative data relating to Clinical sites throughout the survey: N=118 Student advisor should also go to teaching hospitals
Clinical site admin staff are brilliant for any kind of query. Individual lecturers/module staff can be extremely helpful
Regional placements are less well supported, poor library access and poor lecture streaming
Engagement
International students
HSPO
International students: N=276
Support Suggestions (N=53)
Areas needing Improvements (N=140)
Services unavailable in UCD (N=80)
SoM International Office (20.4%)
Library hours and space (10.7%)
Advertisement of supports (18.5%)
Programme planning (8.6%)
Library hours and space (16.7%)
SoM International Office (7.8%)
Library hours and space (10.7%) SoM International Office (8.8%) Assessment feedback (7.5%)
Catering (11.1%)
Study space (6.4%)
Assigned Mentors (7.5%)
High quality (N=125) Programme Office (18.4%) Academic staff (12.8%)
Library (11.2%)
EU students
HSPO
EU students: N=936
Support Suggestions (N=161)
Areas to Improve (N=388)
Advertisement of supports (37.9%)
Programme planning (19.2%)
Library hours and space (11.2%)
Library hours and space (12.8%)
Catering (8.1%)
Academic feedback (8.7%)
Assigned Mentors (6.2%)
Catering (5.9%)
High quality (N=382) Academic staff (28.8%) Programme Office (14%)
Library (6.4%)
HSPO
Examples of Recurrent Comments
Feeling of being over assessed
Feedback to students should be provided at the end of the teaching year
N = 4852
We are told 80% attendance is compulsory however, tutorials, lectures are being cancelled at the last minute, Lecturers not turning up
More continuous assessments! I have no idea on what my course plan looks like in the coming years!
The content of lecturers did not match the exams! More support for arranging electives! Access to study space is limited in particularly during exam times. Lecture organisation on clinical placement. Registrar was not sure what to teach us!
Provide North American student support for their qualifying exams!
Improve the knowledge of staff dealing with international students, USMLE, electives abroad, etc. I did not know that there was an international office in the school for us!
Careers advice during clinical years
?
Overall Experience in the School
HSPO
Total respondents: N=896 Overall Rating: 4.18 Intl: 4.07 (n=220) EU: 4.21 (n=676)
“The curriculum and support for it is outstanding, however, I (along with any student) will rate a school on their successes after graduation. For international students such as myself, I have had to work tooth and nail to be competitive for NA residency positions.”
Qualitative data: n = 35 8.6
Positive
“I was relatively impressed when attending on campus, but there are a plethora of issues since reaching clinical (cancelled lectures daily, bad organisation of tutorials etc, the waste of three weeks with no study facilities or lectures in X hospital...).”
Negative
34.3 57.1
Undefined
“Overall very happy with course, health sciences and UCD."
Overall Experience in UCD
HSPO
Total respondents: N=896 Overall Rating: 4.33 Intl: 4.10 (n=220) EU: 4.41 (n=676)
“I like that UCD seems concerned with the student experience, but no number of well-structured and thorough questionnaires and feedback forms will matter unless said feedback is acted upon. In general, I like the school and hope it continues to improve.”
Qualitative data: n=45 8.9
Positive 35.6
Negative 55.6
“Great campus, facilities, course and people!”
Undefined
“Terrific school for Irish and European students, but the difference in teaching standards compared to North America are very frustrating. Examinations are not reflective of learning objectives. Students on clinical placement are not given sufficient responsibilities, so I feel unprepared for clinical electives in North America.“
HSPO
Recommend UCD to a Prospective Student
Total respondents: N=897
7.5
Intl (n=220) YES (87.7%) NO (12.3%)
EU (n=677) YES (94.1%) NO (5.9%) Qualitative data: N=264 “Simply because UCD is an amazing college that offers a complete college experience... UCD offers students the chance of having a life. To learn instead of memorize. To get an education instead of getting a degree.”
YES NO 92.5
“I would not recommend any students to pursue medical studies abroad altogether if they have the intention of returning to North America… Very little help is offered for residency/elective applications, and the outlook is getting worse due to the constant increase in American medical students. Given the cost of attending medical school at UCD and abroad, I don't find it to be worth the difficulties involved in trying to return to North America."
You're thrown in the deep end but you're aided by your lecturers, tutors and course coordinators that it doesn't feel like that until you look back over the volume of work you have completed. They prepare you for both research and clinical placement regardless of your course so you are more well-rounded with your prospective… I love it here, and would be happy to recommend it."
CONCLUSIONS Conclusions
HSPO
• 1212 students had their say • 57.4% response rate • Data presented here is a summary
• Suggested areas identified that could be improved 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Advertisement of supports Library opening hours and study space International support within the School Academic mentoring and feedback, programme planning Catering
CONCLUSIONS Next Steps
HSPO
• Complete the analysis
• Produce the Executive Summary • Share the findings with each Stakeholder
• Agree an Action Plan to implement the findings • Communication with students in relation to findings and implementation plan – manage student expectations
HSPO
Acknowledgements • Head of School and Dean of Medicine • Student Experience Group Members
• Heads of Units and staff involved in survey • Students who participated
HSPO
Special Acknowledgements • Student experience survey Team
•Mr Kerry Iwa – Programme office •Dr James Fitzpatrick – Programme Office •Ms Helen Tobin – Centre for Emergency Medical Science
• Thank you!
