Search

Abstract Background Systematic biases in group decision making (i.e., group biases) may result in suboptimal decisions and potentially harm patients. It is not well known how impaired group decision making in patient care may affect medical training. This study aimed to explore medical residents’ experiences and perspectives regarding impaired group decision making and the role of group biases in medical decision making. Methods This study used a qualitative approach with thematic analysis underpinned by a social constructionist epistemology. Semi-structured interviews of medical residents were conducted at a single internal medicine residency program. Residents were initially asked about their experiences with suboptimal medical decision making as a group or team. Then, questions were targeted to several group biases (groupthink, social loafing, escalation of commitment). Interviews were transcribed and transferred to a qualitative data analysis software. Thematic analysis was conducted to generate major themes within the dataset. Results Sixteen interviews with residents revealed five major themes: (1) hierarchical influence on group decision making; (2) group decision making under pressure; (3) post-call challenges in decision making; (4) interactions between teamwork and decision making; and (5) personal and cultural influences in group decision making. Subthemes were also identified for each major theme. Most residents were able to recognize groupthink in their past experiences working with medical teams. Residents perceived social loafing or escalation of commitment as less relevant for medical team decision making. Conclusions Our findings provide unique insights into the complexities of group decision making processes in teaching hospitals. Team hierarchy significantly influenced residents’ experiences with group decision making—most group decisions were attributed to consultants or senior team members, while lower ranking team members contributed less and perceived fewer opportunities to engage in group decisions. Other factors such as time constraints on decision making, perceived pressures from other staff members, and challenges associated with post-call days were identified as important barriers to optimal group decision making in patient care. Future studies may build upon these findings to enhance our understanding of medical team decision making and develop strategies to improve group decisions, ultimately leading to higher quality patient care and training.

Background: Systematic biases in group decision making (i.e., group biases) may result in suboptimal decisions and potentially harm patients. It is not well known how impaired group decision making in patient care may affect medical training. This study aimed to explore medical residents' experiences and perspectives regarding impaired group decision making and the role of group biases in medical decision making. Methods: This study used a qualitative approach with thematic analysis underpinned by a social constructionist epistemology. Semi-structured interviews of medical residents were conducted at a single internal medicine residency program. Residents were initially asked about their experiences with suboptimal medical decision making as a group or team. Then, questions were targeted to several group biases (groupthink, social loafing, escalation of commitment). Interviews were transcribed and transferred to a qualitative data analysis software. Thematic analysis was conducted to generate major themes within the dataset. Results: Sixteen interviews with residents revealed five major themes: (1) hierarchical influence on group decision making; (2) group decision making under pressure; (3) post-call challenges in decision making; (4) interactions between teamwork and decision making; and (5) personal and cultural influences in group decision making. Subthemes were also identified for each major theme. Most residents were able to recognize groupthink in their past experiences working with medical teams. Residents perceived social loafing or escalation of commitment as less relevant for medical team decision making. Conclusions: Our findings provide unique insights into the complexities of group decision making processes in teaching hospitals. Team hierarchy significantly influenced residents' experiences with group decision making—most group decisions were attributed to consultants or senior team members, while lower ranking team members contributed less and perceived fewer opportunities to engage in group decisions. Other factors such as time constraints on decision making, perceived pressures from other staff members, and challenges associated with post-call days were identified as important barriers to optimal group decision making in patient care. Future studies may build upon these findings to enhance our understanding of medical team decision making and develop strategies to improve group decisions, ultimately leading to higher quality patient care and training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Small group tutorials (SGT) promotes self-directed learning and is widely used in medical education. The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has accelerated the trend toward SGT digitalization, with unclear effect. We hypothesize that team dynamics and facilitator support influence SGT satisfaction in digital versus conventional SGT. Methods During the spring semester of year 2021, medical students (the second, third, and fourth year; n = 433) participating in conventional face-to-face and digital SGT curricula were enrolled. Participating students completed the collaborative learning attitude scale (including team dynamics, team acquaintance, and facilitator support dimensions) and teamwork satisfaction scale, previously validated for small-group collaborative learning, and chose preference between conventional or digital SGT in future curricula. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to extract the essential structural factors of these scales. Paired t-tests were conducted to compare differences in different dimensions and satisfaction between the conventional and digital SGT settings. Two sets of multiple regression analyses were done; one with team satisfaction scale results and the other with preference for digital SGT as the dependent variable were used to evaluate determinants of these two variables. Results The EFA results revealed that the original collaborative learning attitude scale was concentrated on two dimensions: team dynamics and facilitator support. No significant differences were noted between the SGT settings for the two dimensions and teamwork satisfaction. Regression analyses showed that teamwork dynamics was independently correlated with teamwork satisfaction in both conventional and digital SGT. Facilitator support was positively correlated with teamwork satisfaction in conventional, but not digital SGT. Higher teamwork satisfaction was an important determinant of preference for digital SGT among medical students. Conclusions Team dynamics were closely linked to teamwork satisfaction among medical students in both conventional and digital SGT, while the role of facilitator support became less obvious during digital SGT.

Background: Small group tutorials (SGT) promotes self-directed learning and is widely used in medical education. The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has accelerated the trend toward SGT digitalization, with unclear effect. We hypothesize that team dynamics and facilitator support influence SGT satisfaction in digital versus conventional SGT. Methods: During the spring semester of year 2021, medical students (the second, third, and fourth year; n = 433) participating in conventional face-to-face and digital SGT curricula were enrolled. Participating students completed the collaborative learning attitude scale (including team dynamics, team acquaintance, and facilitator support dimensions) and teamwork satisfaction scale, previously validated for small-group collaborative learning, and chose preference between conventional or digital SGT in future curricula. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to extract the essential structural factors of these scales. Paired t-tests were conducted to compare differences in different dimensions and satisfaction between the conventional and digital SGT settings. Two sets of multiple regression analyses were done; one with team satisfaction scale results and the other with preference for digital SGT as the dependent variable were used to evaluate determinants of these two variables. Results: The EFA results revealed that the original collaborative learning attitude scale was concentrated on two dimensions: team dynamics and facilitator support. No significant differences were noted between the SGT settings for the two dimensions and teamwork satisfaction. Regression analyses showed that teamwork dynamics was independently correlated with teamwork satisfaction in both conventional and digital SGT. Facilitator support was positively correlated with teamwork satisfaction in conventional, but not digital SGT. Higher teamwork satisfaction was an important determinant of preference for digital SGT among medical students. Conclusions: Team dynamics were closely linked to teamwork satisfaction among medical students in both conventional and digital SGT, while the role of facilitator support became less obvious during digital SGT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Peer review in Team-based learning (TBL) exists for three key reasons: to promote reflection on individual behaviours; provide opportunities to develop professional skills; and prevent ‘free riders’ who fail to contribute effectively to team discussions. A well-developed process that engages students is needed. However, evidence suggests it remains a difficult task to effectively incorporate into TBL. The purpose of this study was to assess medical students’ ability to provide written feedback to their peers in TBL, and to explore students’ perception of the process, using the conceptual framework of Biggs ‘3P model’. Methods Year 2 students (n = 255) participated in peer review twice during 2019. We evaluated the quality of feedback using a theoretically derived rubric, and undertook a qualitative analysis of focus group data to seek explanations for feedback behaviors. Results Students demonstrated reasonable ability to provide positive feedback, but were less prepared to identify areas for improvement. Their ability did not improve over time, and was influenced by the perceived task difficulty; social discomfort; and sense of responsibility in providing written feedback. Conclusions To increase student engagement, we require a transparent process that incorporates verbal feedback and team discussion, with monitoring of outcomes by faculty and adequate training.

Background: Peer review in Team-based learning (TBL) exists for three key reasons: to promote reflection on individual behaviours; provide opportunities to develop professional skills; and prevent ‘free riders’ who fail to contribute effectively to team discussions. A well-developed process that engages students is needed. However, evidence suggests it remains a difficult task to effectively incorporate into TBL. The purpose of this study was to assess medical students’ ability to provide written feedback to their peers in TBL, and to explore students’ perception of the process, using the conceptual framework of Biggs ‘3P model’. Methods: Year 2 students (n = 255) participated in peer review twice during 2019. We evaluated the quality of feedback using a theoretically derived rubric, and undertook a qualitative analysis of focus group data to seek explanations for feedback behaviors. Results: Students demonstrated reasonable ability to provide positive feedback, but were less prepared to identify areas for improvement. Their ability did not improve over time, and was influenced by the perceived task difficulty; social discomfort; and sense of responsibility in providing written feedback. Conclusions: To increase student engagement, we require a transparent process that incorporates verbal feedback and team discussion, with monitoring of outcomes by faculty and adequate training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]