Health knowledge made personal
Join this community!
› Share page:
Search posts:


Posted Oct 25 2008 1:16am
How in the world did they, these Doctors, convince Egg Donors to submit themselves to third year medical students examining their ..... ah...vaginas. And how did these doctors come to the conclusion that Egg Donors would be more willing then any other group of women to be Guinea Pigs?  Is it because the Egg Donor is already being poked and probed and figures what the heck...what is one more speculum today...and what about the poor girl(s) that rates her medical student a 5 for worst  performance on the pelvic examination. How much worse can it be already? (can you tell that I am not a fan of the pap smear? Just get it OVER WITH please!!) I can't imagine having a student looking around 'in there' and naming the parts to the instructor who, I am just guessing here, is looking over the students shoulder. And first time egg donors may not have had that many pelvic exams in the first place....look at the average age of 21 to 27 for Egg Donors....and if you consider their first pap smear was at age 18 and then maybe one every other age 24 MAYBE they have had 2 or 3 exams....makes you wonder how good that grading system really is! Now ask Menopausal  women ages 48-55 and see what kind of comments and grades are given then! I would love to be a fly on that wall!
Random thoughts from Sharon!



Richard S. Legro, MD, Carol L. Gnatuk, MD, Allen R. Kunselman, MA and Joanna Cain, MD

From the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Health Evaluation Sciences, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, M.S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania.

Address reprint requests to: Richard S. Legro, MD PO Box 850 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology M.S. Hershey Medical Center Hershey, PA 17033 E-mail:

Objective: To fulfill the need for gynecologic teaching associates for an expanded pelvic examination module for third-year medical students, we sought women who were able to provide feedback to medical students. Oocyte donors were hypothesized as a useful potential pool of gynecologic teaching associates.

Methods: Gynecologic teaching associates were recruited from a pool of women who were involved in our oocyte donor program. Students were evaluated on a scale of 1 (best) to 5 (worst) on their performance on the pelvic examination by themselves ( n = 91), by the gynecologic teaching associate ( n = 10), and by the supervising faculty ( n = 6). Students were shown their evaluations, and these were reviewed at the end of the session to provide students with immediate feedback.

Results: Students consistently ranked their skills lower than either the gynecologic teaching associate or supervising faculty member for all four categories evaluated (communication skills, technical skills, professional demeanor, and overall performance) ( P < .001). Students gave their communications skills the highest mean rankings, whereas gynecologic teaching associates gave them the lowest. The highest correlation and agreement between pairs of evaluators were between the gynecologic teaching associate and the supervising faculty member. Gynecologic teaching associates and faculty members also were more likely to praise the students’ performance in written comments ( {chi}2 58.2, P < .001), whereas no student found anything praiseworthy in his or her performance.

Conclusion: Oocyte donors represent a useful pool of potential gynecologic teaching associates. They provide important feedback to students. Their evaluation of the proficiency of the student correlates well with that of the supervising faculty member.

Post a comment
Write a comment:

Related Searches