Designing the learning of intraprofessional collaboration among medical residents.

BACKGROUND: To preserve quality and continuity of care, collaboration between primary-care and secondary-care physicians is becoming increasingly important. Therefore, learning intraprofessional collaboration (intraPC) requires explicit attention during postgraduate training. Hospital placements provide opportunities for intraPC learning, but these opportunities require interventions to support and enhance such learning. Design-Principles guide the design and development of educational activities when theory-driven Design-Principles are tailored into context-sensitive Design-Principles. The aim of this study was to develop and substantiate a set of theory-driven and context-sensitive Design-Principles for intraPC learning during hospital placements. METHODS: Based on our earlier research, we formulated nine theory-driven Design-Principles. To enrich, refine and consolidate these principles, three focus group sessions with stakeholders were conducted using a Modified Nominal Group Technique. Next, two work conferences were conducted to test the feasibility and applicability of the Design-Principles for developing intraPC educational activities and to sharpen the principles into a final set of Design-Principles. RESULTS: The theoretical Design-Principles were discussed and modified iteratively. Two new Design-Principles were added during focus group 1, and one more Design-Principle was added during focus group 2. The Design-Principles were categorised into three clusters: (i) Culture: building collaborative relations in a psychologically safe context where patterns or feelings of power dynamics between primary and secondary care physicians can be discussed; (ii) Connecting Contexts: making residents and supervisors mutually understand each other's work contexts and activities; and (iii) Making the Implicit Explicit: having supervising teams act as role models demonstrating intraPC and continuously pursuing improvement in intraPC to make intraPC explicit. Participants were unanimous in their view that the Design-Principles in the Culture cluster were prerequisites to facilitate intraPC learning. CONCLUSION: This study led to the development of 12 theory-driven and context-sensitive Design-Principles that may guide the design of educational activities to support intraPC learning during hospital placements.

Exploring power dynamics and their impact on intraprofessional learning.

BACKGROUND: During postgraduate training, considerable efforts for intraprofessional education are in place to prepare primary care residents (PC residents) and medical specialty residents (MS residents) for intraprofessional collaboration (intraPC). Power dynamics are inherently present in such hierarchical medical contexts. This affects intraPC (learning). Yet little attention has been paid to factors that impact power dynamics. This study aims to explore power dynamics and their impact on intraPC learning between PC residents and MS residents during hospital placements. METHODS: This study expands on previously published ethnographic research investigating opportunities and barriers for intraPC learning among residents in five Dutch hospitals. We analysed transcripts of observations and in-depth interviews using template analysis. A critical theory paradigm was employed. Discourse analysis additionally informed the data. RESULTS: We defined five interrelated themes that describe characteristics of power dynamics in intraPC learning during hospital placements: beliefs; power distribution; interaction style; subjection; and fearless learning. Power dynamics operate both within and between the themes: power distribution between PC residents, MS residents and MS supervisors seemed to be an attribution affected by underlying beliefs about professional norms or about other professions; beliefs influenced the way PC residents, MS residents and MS supervisors interacted; power distribution based on inequity could lead to subjection of PC residents; power distribution based on equity could lead to fearless learning; and open interactions enabled fearless intraPC learning. CONCLUSIONS: Power dynamics have an impact on intraPC learning among residents in hospitals. Constructive power dynamics occur when power distribution is based on equity, combined with sincere open interactions, actively inviting each other into discussions and enlisting the support of MS supervisors to foster fearless learning. This can be achieved by creating awareness of implicit beliefs and making them explicit, recognising interaction that encourages intraPC learning and creating policies that support fearless intraPC learning.

Chances for learning intraprofessional collaboration between residents in hospitals.

CONTEXT: Intraprofessional collaboration (intraPC) between primary care (PC) doctors and medical specialists (MSs) is becoming increasingly important. Patient safety issues are often related to intraPC. In order to equip doctors well for their task of providing good quality and continuity of care, intraPC needs explicit attention, starting in postgraduate training. Worldwide, PC residents undertake a hospital placement during their postgraduate training, where they work in proximity with MS residents. This placement offers the opportunity to learn intraPC. It is yet unknown whether and how residents learn intraPC and what barriers to and opportunities for exist in learning intraPC during hospital placements. METHODS: We performed an ethnographic non-participatory observational study in three emergency departments and three geriatric departments of five hospitals in the Netherlands. This was followed by 42 in-depth interviews with the observed residents and supervisors. The observations were used to feed the questions for the in-depth interviews. We analysed the interviews iteratively following the data collection using template analysis. RESULTS: Hospital wards are rich in opportunities for learning intraPC. These opportunities, however, are seldom exploited for various reasons: intraPC receives limited attention when formulating placement goals, so purposeful learning of intraPC hardly takes place; residents lack awareness of the learning of intraPC; MS residents are not accustomed to searching for expertise from PC residents; PC residents adapt to the MS role and they contribute very little of their PC knowledge, and power dynamics in the hospital department negatively influence the learning of intraPC. Therefore, improvements in mindset, professional identity and power dynamics are crucial to facilitate and promote intraPC. CONCLUSIONS: Intraprofessional collaboration is not learned spontaneously during hospital placements. To benefit from the abundant opportunities to learn intraPC, adjustments to the set-up of these placements are necessary. Learning intraPC is promoted when there is a collaborative culture, hierarchy is limited, and there is dedicated time for intraPC and support from the supervisor.

Tolerance of clinical uncertainty by geriatric residents: a qualitative study.

CONTEXT: With the growing complexity in health care, clinical uncertainty increases, even more so in geriatrics. Intolerance of clinical uncertainty can result in stress, burnout and additional costs. This makes tolerance of clinical uncertainty a highly relevant skill to learn. This study investigated how residents cope with clinical uncertainty and explored options to improve their tolerance of it. METHODS: We interviewed nine residents from the geriatric department of a university medical center and analyzed the interviews conform template analysis using the 'integrative model of uncertainty tolerance'. RESULTS: All residents experienced clinical uncertainty regularly and emphasized it was a relevant topic. Residents described clinical uncertainty as both negative and positive, explaining it was difficult to deal with and could lead to stress, but it also kept them focused, challenged them and stimulated learning. While most of the reported topics fitted in the theoretical model, the model did not reflect the dynamics of clinical uncertainty and lacked its consequences outside the workplace. Residents mainly responded to clinical uncertainty by asking supervisors and peers to double-check their decisions concerning a patient. Residents indicated that they barely discussed their own emotions, cognitions or learning processes with peers or their supervisors. They would welcome the incorporation of clinical uncertainty as standard theme in patient supervision and educational meetings. CONCLUSION: Clinical uncertainty is not a problem of an insecure, failing resident, but an inherent part of caring for complex geriatric patients. Residents deserve to be trained in tolerance of clinical uncertainty to improve their well-being and care for geriatric patients.