Text

Background: Practical clinical training is essential in medical education, yet students often report limited opportunities for individualized practice before OSCE examinations and entry into clinical placements. To address this need, structured voluntary follow-up sessions were introduced for third-year medical students to complement the mandatory peer-tutoring curriculum.

Description of the project: To supplement the compulsory curriculum, structured voluntary follow-up sessions were offered after students had completed all standard OSCE-related modules, including history taking and physical examination of major organ systems. The sessions were conducted in small groups and guided by trained peer tutors. Students were encouraged to identify specific clinical skills or examination steps they found challenging and to practice these in a supportive environment. Tutors provided individualized guidance, answered questions, and adapted the content flexibly according to participants’ learning needs. A second round of voluntary sessions was offered shortly before the practical OSCE examination, again allowing students to revisit examination domains, practice selected skills, and clarify remaining uncertainties.

Evaluation: Evaluation was based on descriptive course feedback from participating students. In these evaluations, students reported that they perceived the follow-up sessions as helpful and experienced increased confidence in performing clinical skills. They particularly valued the opportunity for individualized practice, focused repetition of challenging examination steps, and direct interaction with tutors in a low-pressure learning environment.

Conclusion: Voluntary follow-up sessions represent a feasible and well-accepted educational supplement to the mandatory peer-tutoring curriculum. By providing structured yet flexible opportunities for learner-directed practice, the sessions address individual training needs that may not be fully met within standardized teaching formats.

Outlook: Based on positive participant feedback, integrating similar follow-up sessions more formally into the clinical curriculum may be considered. Future systematic evaluation could further explore their role in supporting clinical skills development.

Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.