Search

Off-the-job faculty development for clinical teachers has been blighted by poor attendance, unsatisfactory sustainability, and weak impact. The faculty development literature has attributed these problems to the marginalisation of the clinical teacher role in host institutions. By focusing on macro-organisational factors, faculty development is ignoring the how clinical teachers are shaped by their everyday participation in micro-organisations such as clinical teams. We set out to explore how the roles of clinical teacher and graduate learner are co-constructed in the context of everyday work in clinical teams. Using an ethnographic study design we carried out marginal participant observation of four different hospital clinical teams. We assembled a dataset comprising field notes, participant interviews, images, and video, which captured day-to-day working and learning encounters between team members. We applied the dramaturgical sensitising concepts of impression management and face work to a thematic analysis of the dataset. We found that learning in clinical teams was largely informal. Clinical teachers modelled, but rarely articulated, an implicit curriculum of norms, standards and expectations. Trainees sought to establish legitimacy and credibility for themselves by creating impressions of being able to recognise and reproduce lead clinicians' standards. Teachers and trainees colluded in using face work strategies to sustain favourable impressions but, in so doing, diminished learning opportunities and undermined educational dialogue. These finding suggest that there is a complex interrelationship between membership of clinical teams and clinical learning. The implication for faculty development is that it needs to move beyond its current emphasis on the structuring effects of institutional context to a deeper consideration of how teacher and learner roles are co-constructed in clinical teams.

Purpose: Undergraduate medical education (UGME) has to prepare students to do safety-critical work (notably, to prescribe) immediately after qualifying. Despite hospitals depending on them, medical graduates consistently report feeling unprepared to prescribe and they sometimes harm patients. Research clarifying how to prepare students better could improve healthcare safety. Our aim was to explore how students experienced preparing for one of their commonest prescribing tasks: intravenous fluid therapy (IVFT). Methods: Complexity assumptions guided the research, which used a qualitative methodology oriented towards hermeneutic phenomenology. The study design was an uncontrolled and unplanned complex intervention: judicial review of the iatrogenic death of five children due to hyponatraemia in our region had resulted in the recommendation that students' education in 'the implementation of important clinical guidelines' relevant to fluid and electrolyte balance should be intensified. An opportunity sample of 40 final-year medical students drew and gave audio-recorded commentaries on rich pictures. We completed two template analyses: one of participants' transcribed commentaries on the pictures and one using a novel heuristic to analyse the pictures themselves. We then reconciled the two analyses into a single template. Results: There were four themes: affects, teaching and learning, contradictions, and the curriculum as a journey. To explore interconnections between themes, we chose the picture best exemplifying each of the four themes and interpreted the curriculum journey depicted in each of them. These interpretations were grounded in each participant's picture, verbal account of the picture, and the aggregate findings of the template analysis. Participants' experiences were influenced by the situated complexity of IVFT. Layered on top of that, contradictions, overlaps, and gaps within the curriculum introduced extraneous complexity. Confusion and apprehension resulted. Conclusions: After spending five years preparing to prescribe IVFT, participants felt unprepared to do so. We conclude that intensive teaching had not achieved its avowed goal of improving students' preparedness for safe practice. Merton's seminal work on the 'unanticipated consequences of purposive social action' suggests that intensive teaching may even have contributed to their unpreparedness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) is a suite of methodologies that combine qualitative techniques with the synthesis of qualitative knowledge. They are particularly suited to medical education as these approaches pool findings from original qualitative studies, whilst paying attention to context and theoretical development. Although increasingly sophisticated use is being made of qualitative primary research methodologies in health professions education (HPE) the use of secondary qualitative reviews in HPE remains underdeveloped. This study examined QES methods applied to clinical humanism in healthcare as a way of advancing thinking around the use of QES in HPE in general. A systematic search strategy identified 49 reviews that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-study was used to develop an analytic summary of methodological characteristics, the role of theory, and the synthetic processes used in QES reviews. Fifteen reviews used a defined methodology, and 17 clearly explained the processes that led from data extraction to synthesis. Eight reviews adopted a specific theoretical perspective. Authors rarely described their reflexive relationship with their data. Epistemological positions tended to be implied rather than explicit. Twenty-five reviews included some form of quality appraisal, although it was often unclear how authors acted on its results. Reviewers under-reported qualitative approaches in their review methodologies, and tended to focus on elements such as systematicity and checklist quality appraisal that were more germane to quantitative evidence synthesis. A core concern was that the axiological (value) dimensions of the source materials were rarely considered let alone accommodated in the synthesis techniques used. QES can be used in HPE research but only with careful attention to maintaining axiological integrity.

PURPOSE The increased availability of reliable diagnostic technologies has stimulated debate about the utility of physical examination in contemporary clinical practice. To reappraise its utility, we explored family physicians' experiences. METHODS Guided by principles of phenomenology, we conducted in-depth qualitative interviews exploring 16 family physicians' experiences of conducting physical examination: 7 (44%) men and 9 women (56%) whose clinical experience varied widely, from 11 (69%) urban and 5 (31%) rural locations. We recorded the interviews, transcribed them verbatim, and identified initial themes using template analysis. We worked reflexively, critiquing our own and other team members' interpretations, in order to synthesize and write a final interpretation. RESULTS Participants described 2 facets of physical examination: making diagnoses and estimating prognoses rationally and objectively; and responding subjectively and intuitively to patients' illnesses, which formed relationships between doctor and patient that enacted medical care in the moment. Physical examination allowed physicians to use their own bodies to experience patients' illnesses. Performing physical examination was integral to being a family doctor because it promoted rapport and developed trust. CONCLUSIONS Physical examination is part of the identity of family physicians. It not only contributes diagnostic information but is a therapeutic intervention in and of itself. Physical examination contributes to relationship-centered care in family practice., INTRODUCTION The role of physical examination in contemporary medicine is debated (1-4) because clinical skills, like other aspects of practice, are being scrutinized for supporting evidence. Critics draw attention to [...]

The CanMEDS framework has been widely adopted in residency education and feedback processes are guided by it. It is, however, only one of many influences on what is actually discussed in feedback. The sociohistorical culture of medicine and individual supervisors' contexts, experiences and beliefs are also influential. Our aim was to find how CanMEDS roles are constructed in feedback in a postgraduate curriculum-in-action. We applied a set of discourse analytic tools to written feedback from 591 feedback forms from 7 hospitals, including 3150 feedback comments in which 126 supervisors provided feedback to 120 residents after observing their performance in authentic settings. The role of Collaborator was constructed in two different ways: a cooperative discourse of equality with other workers and patients; and a discourse, which gave residents positions of power--delegating, asserting and "taking a firm stance". Efficiency--being fast and to the point emerged as an important attribute of physicians. Patients were seldom part of the discourses and, when they were, they were constructed as objects of communication and collaboration rather than partners. Although some of the discourses are in line with what might be expected, others were in striking contrast to the spirit of CanMEDS. This study's findings suggest that it takes more than a competency framework, evaluation instruments, and supervisor training to change the culture of workplaces. The impact on residents of training in such demanding, efficiency-focused clinical environments is an important topic for future research.

Clerkship education has been called a "black box" because so little is known about what, how, and under which conditions students learn. Our aim was to develop a blueprint for education in ambulatory and inpatient settings, and in single encounters, traditional rotations, or longitudinal experiences. We identified 548 causal links between conditions, processes, and outcomes of clerkship education in 168 empirical papers published over 7 years and synthesised a theory of how students learn. They do so when they are given affective, pedagogic, and organisational support. Affective support comes from doctors' and many other health workers' interactions with students. Pedagogic support comes from informal interactions and modelling as well as doctors' teaching, supervision, and precepting. Organisational support comes from every tier of a curriculum. Core learning processes of observing, rehearsing, and contributing to authentic clinical activities take place within triadic relationships between students, patients, and practitioners. The phrase "supported participation in practice" best describes the educational process. Much of the learning that results is too tacit, complex, contextualised, and individual to be defined as a set of competencies. We conclude that clerkship education takes place within relationships between students, patients, and doctors, supported by informal, individual, contextualised, and affective elements of the learned curriculum, alongside formal, standardised elements of the taught and assessed curriculum. This research provides a blueprint for designing and evaluating clerkship curricula as well as helping patients, students, and practitioners collaborate in educating tomorrow's doctors.

"Curricula-in-action" generally differ from "official" curricula. That is particularly true of clerkship curricula because the practising doctors who supervise medical students' clinical activities are only secondarily educators. Clerkship education is evaluated, however, according to benchmarks set by official curricula. As a result, clerkship evaluations are important points of contact between clinical teachers and medical schools. We reasoned that an evaluation instrument is part of a medical school's official curriculum discourse and clinical teachers' reactions to it are a discourse of curriculum-in-action. We set out to answer the questions: What are clinical teachers' discourses of curriculum-in-action and how do they relate to an official curriculum discourse? Nineteen clerkship placement leads from two hospitals contributing to a single undergraduate medical programme participated. The evaluation instrument was the Manchester Clinical Placement Index, for which validity evidence has been published. Respondents were asked to say how they would react to junior students giving their placements low or high scores for each of 12 items from the Index. After transcription, we conducted a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of their audio-recorded answers. We purposefully selected the six items that elicited the widest spectrum of responses for analysis because quantity of material can compromise the quality of CDA. A dominant discourse of curriculum-in-action defined how teachers should "really" teach and junior students should learn. It deconstructed the need for teachers to be present when students performed clinical tasks because teachers' role was to give critical feedback on case presentations that were coincidental to clinical care. It positioned students at the bottom of a power hierarchy so they had to "struggle" to be taught. It placed respondents in a powerful position relative to "the hospital" and "the university", though there were tensions between respondents, patients, and nurses. Respondents dismissed criticism that was invalid according to their curriculum-in-action, which included most items in an evaluation instrument. There was a contrasting, non-dominant discourse of responding reflectively to feedback, which generated realistic ways of improving students' learning. The strength of respondents' emotions shows just how committed doctors are to students' learning. The strength of their expressions of power, however, explains why many of them teach in their own way rather than according to official curricula. Changes to clinical curricula, our findings suggest, will not be successful unless they are carefully negotiated with practising doctors.

Outcome based or competency based education (OBE) is so firmly established in undergraduate medical education that it might not seem necessary to ask why it was included in recommendations for the future, like the Flexner centenary report. Uncritical acceptance may not, however, deliver its greatest benefits. Our aim was to explore the underpinnings of OBE: its historical origins, theoretical basis, and empirical evidence of its effects in order to answer the question: How can predetermined learning outcomes influence undergraduate medical education? This literature review had three components: A review of historical landmarks in the evolution of OBE; a review of conceptual frameworks and theories; and a systematic review of empirical publications from 1999 to 2010 that reported data concerning the effects of learning outcomes on undergraduate medical education. OBE had its origins in behaviourist theories of learning. It is tightly linked to the assessment and regulation of proficiency, but less clearly linked to teaching and learning activities. Over time, there have been cycles of advocacy for, then criticism of, OBE. A recurring critique concerns the place of complex personal and professional attributes as "competencies". OBE has been adopted by consensus in the face of weak empirical evidence. OBE, which has been advocated for over 50 years, can contribute usefully to defining requisite knowledge and skills, and blueprinting assessments. Its applicability to more complex aspects of clinical performance is not clear. OBE, we conclude, provides a valuable approach to some, but not all, important aspects of undergraduate medical education.

The drive to quality-manage medical education has created a need for valid measurement instruments. Validity evidence includes the theoretical and contextual origin of items, choice of response processes, internal structure, and interrelationship of a measure's variables. This research set out to explore the validity and potential utility of an 11-item measurement instrument, whose theoretical and empirical origins were in an Experience Based Learning model of how medical students learn in communities of practice (COPs), and whose contextual origins were in a community-oriented, horizontally integrated, undergraduate medical programme. The objectives were to examine the psychometric properties of the scale in both hospital and community COPs and provide validity evidence to support using it to measure the quality of placements. The instrument was administered twice to students learning in both hospital and community placements and analysed using exploratory factor analysis and a generalizability analysis. 754 of a possible 902 questionnaires were returned (84% response rate), representing 168 placements. Eight items loaded onto two factors, which accounted for 78% of variance in the hospital data and 82% of variance in the community data. One factor was the placement learning environment, whose five constituent items were how learners were received at the start of the placement, people's supportiveness, and the quality of organisation, leadership, and facilities. The other factor represented the quality of training--instruction in skills, observing students performing skills, and providing students with feedback. Alpha coefficients ranged between 0.89 and 0.93 and there were no redundant or ambiguous items. Generalisability analysis showed that between 7 and 11 raters would be needed to achieve acceptable reliability. There is validity evidence to support using the simple 8-item, mixed methods Manchester Clinical Placement Index to measure key conditions for undergraduate medical students' experience based learning: the quality of the learning environment and the training provided within it. Its conceptual orientation is towards Communities of Practice, which is a dominant contemporary theory in undergraduate medical education.

Paediatric placements provide medical student' main undergraduate training in caring for children and young people. Yet changes in medical education have reduced opportunities to participate in patient care, potentially leading students to feel underprepared for the challenges of paediatric practice. This article introduces experience-based learning (ExBL), an evidence-based framework to guide clinicians involved in teaching medical students. It describes how the framework was developed and outlines its central principles - promoting students' participation in patient care and supporting them to reflect on their experiences. It then offers practical guidance on how clinicians can use ExBL to reformulate and refresh paediatric placements within the constraints facing clinical education and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence that medical error can cause harm to patients has raised the attention of the health care community towards patient safety and influenced how and what medical students learn about it. Patient safety is best taught when students are participating in clinical practice where they actually encounter patients at risk. This type of learning is referred to as workplace learning, a complex system in which various factors influence what is being learned and how. A theory that can highlight potential difficulties in this complex learning system about patient safety is activity theory. Thirty-four final year undergraduate medical students participated in four focus groups about their experiences concerning patient safety. Using activity theory as analytical framework, we performed constant comparative thematic analysis of the focus group transcripts to identify important themes. We found eight general themes relating to two activities: learning to be a doctor and delivering safe patient care. Simultaneous occurrence of these two activities can cause contradictions. Our results illustrate the complexity of learning about patient safety at the workplace. Students encounter contradictions when learning about patient safety, especially during a transitional phase of their training. These contradictions create potential learning opportunities which should be used in education about patient safety. Insight into the complexities of patient safety is essential to improve education in this important area of medicine. (Contains 3 figures.)

UK continuing education is moving from credit-earning, taught continuing medical education (CME) to a continuing professional development (CPD) system that explicitly links education to change in practice, managed and monitored through mandatory peer appraisal. Alongside multisource feedback and consideration of issues of poor performance, satisfactory personal development planning will be required for relicensure and recertification. That system gives self-assessment, in the guise of reflection, a central place in personal development. This article uses instances of directed self-assessment drawn from undergraduate and early postgraduate medical education to consider how a positive system of self-assessment and professional self-regulation could be operationalized. It explores why medical students made avid use of an e-technology that presents the intended outcomes of their problem-based curriculum in a way that helps them seek out appropriate clinical opportunities and identify what they learned from them. It contrasts the experience of early postgraduate learners who, presented with a similar e-technology, found it hard to see links between their official curriculum and their day-by-day learning experiences, at least partly because the intended outcomes it offered were remote from what they were actually learning. Any extrapolation to CPD must be very tentative, but I advocate continued exploration of how best to use e-technology to support and structure (ie, direct) self-assessment. Direction could originate from consensus statements and other well-defined external standards when learners lack mastery of a domain. When learners must respond to institutional demands, direction could be provided by corporate goals. In areas of mastery, I propose learners themselves should define personal standards. In areas of difficulty, external assessment would take the place of self-assessment. (Contains 1 table.)

This article suggests communicative steps and strategies to help healthcare professionals achieve the ideals of child-centred care, which place children and young people at the centre of policy and practice. For those with 15 s, not 15 min, our suggestions can be summarised like this: help children be active agents in their own care by asking, listening well, being curious and explaining things clearly in an accessible but not condescending way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]