The stigma of underperformance in assessment and remediation.

The stigma of underperformance is widely acknowledged but seldom explored. 'Failure to fail' is a perennial problem in health professions education, and learner remediation continues to tax supervisors. In this study, we draw on Goffman's seminal work on stigma to explore supervisors' accounts of judging performance and managing remediation in specialty anesthesia training in Australia and New Zealand. In doing so, we focus on what Goffman calls a "stigma theory" to explain the supervisors' reported practices. We performed a secondary analysis of nineteen interviews originally gathered using purposive sampling to explore how assessment decisions were made. We conducted a theory-informed thematic analysis of the supervisors' accounts to identify signifiers of stigma and underlying structures and beliefs. From both deductive and inductive analysis, we developed themes that demonstrate how the stigma of underperformance influences and is induced by supervisors' reticence to discuss underperformance, their desire to conceal remediation, and their differential treatment of trainees. We also found that accounts of trainees 'lacking insight' resembled stigma-induced stereotyping. We argue from our data that our cultural expectations of perfectionism propagate a stigma that undermines our efforts to remediate underperformance and that our remediation practices inadvertently induce stigma. We suggest that a multifaceted approach using both individual and collective action is necessary to change both culture and practice and encourage the normalisation of remediation.

Towards a pedagogy for noticing: Piloting a novel intervention for health professions students.

Teaching students to 'notice' what is happening around them, to be more attuned to what is going on within themselves, and nurturing self-inquiry into one's practice is desirable yet difficult to achieve. We sought to teach the metacognitive skill of 'noticing' to pre-registration health professions students in the context of interprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP). A three-part curriculum was designed: an e-module focused on 'noticing' in IPCP; a team-based workplace learning observation and interprofessional debrief; and a written reflective assignment. We found that students concentrated on the disciplinary content of IPCP in the assignments, which 'overshadowed' the metacognitive content. We learned that: we had underestimated the challenges of retrofitting new content into existing curricula; that we had not paid enough attention to students' perceptions about what they want to learn; and working with a large and diverse group of educators requires adequate preparation. The next iteration of this program will improve the constructive alignment between learning outcomes and assessments and provide better support for educators. In the future we will temper decisions to act quickly to implement curricular innovations. More broadly, we suggest that educational design that seeks to take account of qualitatively different but intersecting knowledge domains, such as IPCP and 'noticing', is worthy of further study.

The work performed through interprofessional meeting discourse: an observational study.

The effectiveness of work performed through interprofessional practice is contingent on the nature and extent of communication between professionals. To date, there is little research exploring how the patterns of communication may impact interprofessional work. This study focused on communication during interprofessional meetings to better understand the interprofessional work performed through these encounters. Specifically, it examined how interactional discourse, that is, the patterns of language, influenced work performed during interprofessional meetings. A series of four interprofessional meetings in a rehabilitation unit were observed. Twenty-one participants were observed, including medical, nursing, allied health clinicians, and health professions students. Follow-up stimulated-recall interviews were conducted with five meeting participants. The data collection consisted of video and audio recordings and detailed field notes. Data were analyzed using a combination of genre analysis, a form of discourse analysis, and activity system analysis, drawing on Cultural Historical Activity Theory. This facilitated an in-depth examination of the structure of discourse and its influence on meeting outcomes. The meeting structure was defined and predictable. Two distinct forms of discourse were identified and labeled scripted and unscripted. Scripted discourse was prompted by standardized documents and facilitated the completion of organizational work. In contrast, unscripted discourse was spontaneous dialogue used to co-construct knowledge and contributed to collaboration. There was constant shifting between scripted and unscripted discourse throughout meetings which was orchestrated by experienced clinicians. Rather than fragmenting the discussion, this shifting enabled shared decision making. This research provides further insights into the interprofessional work performed during interprofessional meetings. The scripted discourse was highly influenced by artifacts (communication tools) in meetings, and these were used to ensure organizational imperatives were met. Unscripted discourse facilitated not only new insights and decisions but also social cohesion that may influence work within and outside the meeting.

'Noticing' in health professions education: Time to pay attention?

BACKGROUND: Health professions education teaches students to notice particular things, but has given little attention to teaching 'noticing' as a form of personal inquiry. The former is self-evidently important, as it develops a way of seeing and behaving that is uniquely relevant to each health profession. Despite this emphasis, health professionals may fail to notice 'warning signs' in patients, be unaware of their own biases or develop unrecognised habits that have moved away from accepted standards. It has been suggested that such 'not noticing' is currently endemic. APPROACH: We situate our exploration of noticing in the mathematics and science education literature and John Mason's treatise on 'The discipline of noticing', differentiating between the observations that people make as they go about their lives ('ordinary' noticing), the specialised noticing that underpins professional expertise (Professional Noticing) and practices that can enhance the capacity to notice and to learn from experience (Intentional Noticing). We make the case for teaching health professions students about these conceptualisations of noticing, being able to notice with all our senses, and learning about the practices of Intentional Noticing in particular, which we suggest will have utility across health professional careers and personal lives. IMPLICATIONS: We acknowledge the difficulties in transferring heterogenous finding from one field to another but suggest that there are gains to be made in applying these noticing concepts to health professions education. We tentatively propose some strategies and activities for developing Professional Noticing and the practices of Intentional Noticing and link them to a new module that we are piloting with health professions students. As well as aiding health professionals sharpen their noticing abilities, reinvigorate their practice and interrogate assumptions that underpin health care, we suggest that ideas about 'noticing' may also help educators and researchers in the health professions reimagine their work.

Meaning making about performance: A comparison of two specialty feedback cultures.

INTRODUCTION: Specialty trainees often struggle to understand how well they are performing, and feedback is commonly seen as a solution to this problem. However, medical education tends to approach feedback as acontextual rather than located in a specialty-specific cultural world. This study therefore compares how specialty trainees in surgery and intensive care medicine (ICM) make meaning about the quality of their performance and the role of feedback conversations in this process. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative interview study in the constructivist grounded theory tradition. We interviewed 17 trainees from across Australia in 2020, eight from ICM and nine from surgery, and iterated between data collection and analytic discussions. We employed open, focused, axial and theoretical coding. FINDINGS: There were significant divergences between specialties. Surgical trainees had more opportunity to work directly with supervisors, and there was a strong link between patient outcome and quality of care, with a focus on performance information about operative skills. ICM was a highly uncertain practice environment, where patient outcome could not be relied upon as a source of performance information; valued performance information was diffuse and included tacit emotional support. These different 'specialty feedback cultures' strongly influenced how trainees orchestrated opportunities for feedback, made meaning of their performance in their day-to-day patient care tasks and 'patched together' experiences and inputs into an evolving sense of overall progress. DISCUSSION: We identified two types of meaning-making about performance: first, trainees' understanding of an immediate performance in a patient-care task and, second, a 'patched together' sense of overall progress from incomplete performance information. This study suggests approaches to feedback should attend to both, but also take account of the cultural worlds of specialty practice, with their attendant complexities. In particular, feedback conversations could better acknowledge the variable quality of performance information and specialty specific levels of uncertainty.

Trust, power and learning in workplace-based assessment: The trainee perspective.

For trainees to participate meaningfully in workplace-based assessment (WBA), they must have trust in their assessor. However, the trainee's dependent position complicates such trust. Understanding how power and trust influence WBAs may help us make them more effective learning opportunities. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 postgraduate anaesthesia trainees across Australia and New Zealand. Sensitised by notions of power, we used constructivist grounded theory methodology to examine trainees' experiences with trusting their supervisors in WBAs. In our trainee accounts, we found that supervisors held significant power to mediate access to learning opportunities and influence trainee progress in training. All episodes where supervisors could observe trainees, from simply working together to formal WBAs, were seen to generate assessment information with potential consequences. In response, trainees actively acquiesced to a deferential role, which helped them access desirable expertise and minimise the risk of reputational harm. Trainees granted trust based on how they anticipated a supervisor would use the power inherent in their role. Trainees learned to ration exposure of their authentic practice to supervisors in proportion to their trust in them. Trainees were more trusting and open to learning when supervisors used their power for the trainee's benefit and avoided WBAs with supervisors they perceived as less trustworthy. If assessment for learning is to flourish, then the trainee-supervisor power dynamic must evolve. Enhancing supervisor behaviour through reflection and professional development to better reward trainee trust would invite more trainee participation in assessment for learning. Modifying the assessment system design to nudge the power balance towards the trainee may also help. Modifications could include designated formative and summative assessments or empowering trainees to select which assessments count towards progress decisions. Attending to power and trust in WBA may stimulate progress towards the previously aspirational goal of assessment for learning in the workplace.

How do students offer value to organisations through work integrated learning? A qualitative study using Social Exchange Theory.

Learning through work is a common feature of preparing health professionals for practice. Current understandings of work-integrated learning or a 'work-based placement', focus on students being consumers of experiences rather than providing a reciprocal benefit to the organisation in which they are placed. More nuanced understanding of the ways that students can offer value to organisations may provide new opportunities and increased capacity for workplace learning. This study drew on Social Exchange Theory to explore the perceived value and benefits of work-integrated learning experiences to the organisations in which students are placed. The focus was on population health placements undertaken by dietetics students at a large Australian university. An interpretive approach was employed with interviews with placement educators and document analysis of student-generated products from their placement. Seventeen of 20 eligible placement educators were interviewed, with interview data coded using thematic framework analysis. These data were supported with document analysis of student scientific posters completed as part of assessment to develop themes which were interpreted with social exchange theory. Three themes were identified: (1) students add to the organisation's capacity, (2) benefits outweigh time cost of planning and supervising and (3) explicitly valuing students for their contributions may build trust and further potentiate bi-directional benefits. Results suggest that student placements can add value to organisations. This reciprocity of benefits should be communicated to all stakeholders involved in the university-community collaboration, including students. Social exchange theory sensitised researchers to nuanced findings that may support the translation of these study findings to other student work-integrated learning settings.

Development of the Feedback Quality Instrument: a guide for health professional educators in fostering learner-centred discussions.

BACKGROUND: Face-to-face feedback plays an important role in health professionals' workplace learning. The literature describes guiding principles regarding effective feedback but it is not clear how to enact these. We aimed to create a Feedback Quality Instrument (FQI), underpinned by a social constructivist perspective, to assist educators in collaborating with learners to support learner-centred feedback interactions. In earlier research, we developed a set of observable educator behaviours designed to promote beneficial learner outcomes, supported by published research and expert consensus. This research focused on analysing and refining this provisional instrument, to create the FQI ready-to-use. METHODS: We collected videos of authentic face-to-face feedback discussions, involving educators (senior clinicians) and learners (clinicians or students), during routine clinical practice across a major metropolitan hospital network. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the video data were used to refine the provisional instrument. Raters administered the provisional instrument to systematically analyse educators' feedback practice seen in the videos. This enabled usability testing and resulted in ratings data for psychometric analysis involving multifaceted Rasch model analysis and exploratory factor analysis. Parallel qualitative research of the video transcripts focused on two under-researched areas, psychological safety and evaluative judgement, to provide practical insights for item refinement. The provisional instrument was revised, using an iterative process, incorporating findings from usability testing, psychometric testing and parallel qualitative research and foundational research. RESULTS: Thirty-six videos involved diverse health professionals across medicine, nursing and physiotherapy. Administering the provisional instrument generated 174 data sets. Following refinements, the FQI contained 25 items, clustered into five domains characterising core concepts underpinning quality feedback: set the scene, analyse performance, plan improvements, foster learner agency, and foster psychological safety. CONCLUSIONS: The FQI describes practical, empirically-informed ways for educators to foster quality, learner-centred feedback discussions. The explicit descriptions offer guidance for educators and provide a foundation for the systematic analysis of the influence of specific educator behaviours on learner outcomes.

Challenging feedback myths: Values, learner involvement and promoting effects beyond the immediate task.

CONTEXT: Research suggests that feedback in the health professions is less useful than we would like. In this paper, we argue that feedback has become reliant on myths that perpetuate unproductive rituals. Feedback often resembles a discrete episode of an educator "telling," rather than an active and iterative involvement of the learner in a future-facing process. With this orientation towards past events, it is not surprising that learners become defensive or disengaged when they are reminded of their deficits. METHODS: We tackle three myths of feedback: (a) feedback needs praise-criticism balancing rules; (b) feedback is a skill residing within the teacher; and (c) feedback is an input only. For each myth we provide a reframing with supporting examples from the literature. CONCLUSIONS: Equipping learners to engage in feedback processes may reduce the emotional burden on both parties, rendering techniques such as the feedback sandwich redundant. We also highlight the benefits for learners and teachers of conceptualising feedback as a relational activity, and of tracing the effects of information exchanges. These effects may be immediate or latent, and may manifest in different forms such as changes in learner evaluative judgement or professional identity.

Psychological safety in feedback: What does it look like and how can educators work with learners to foster it?

CONTEXT: Feedback conversations play a central role in health professions workplace learning. However, learners face a dilemma: if they engage in productive learning behaviours (such as asking questions, raising difficulties, offering opinions or contesting ideas), they risk exposing their limitations or offending the educator. This highlights the importance of psychological safety in encouraging learners to candidly engage in interactive dialogue and the co-construction of knowledge. Previous research has recommended that building safety, trust or an educational alliance is key to productive feedback encounters. Yet it is unclear how to translate this into practice. Hence our research question was: What does psychological safety look like in workplace feedback and how can educators work with learners to foster it? METHODS: We analysed 36 videos of routine formal feedback episodes in clinical practice involving diverse health professionals. A psychologically safe learning environment was inferred when learners progressively disclosed information and engaged in productive learning behaviours during the conversation. We used thematic analysis to identify associated educator strategies, which seemed to promote psychological safety. RESULTS: Four themes were identified: (a) setting the scene for dialogue and candour; (b) educator as ally; (c) a continuing improvement orientation, and (d) encouraging interactive dialogue. Educators approaches captured within these themes, seemed to foster a psychologically safe environment by conveying a focus on learning, and demonstrating respect and support to learners. CONCLUSIONS: This study builds on claims regarding the importance of psychological safety in feedback by clarifying what psychological safety in workplace feedback conversations might look like and identifying associated educator approaches. The results may offer educators practical ways they could work with learners to encourage candid dialogue focused on improving performance.

Shadow systems in assessment: how supervisors make progress decisions in practice.

Medical educators are tasked with decisions on trainee progression and credentialing for independent clinical practice, which requires robust evidence from workplace-based assessment. It is unclear how the current promotion of workplace-based assessment as a pedagogical approach to promote learning has impacted this use of assessments for decision-making; meeting both these purposes may present unforeseen challenges. In this study we explored how supervisors make decisions on trainee progress in practice. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 supervisors of postgraduate anesthesia training across Australia and New Zealand and undertook thematic analysis of the transcripts. Supervisors looked beyond the formal assessment portfolio when making performance decisions. They instead used assessment 'shadow systems' based on their own observation and confidential judgements from trusted colleagues. Supervisors' decision making involved expert judgement of the perceived salient aspects of performance and the standard to be attained while making allowances for the opportunities and constraints of the local learning environment. Supervisors found making progress decisions an emotional burden. When faced with difficult decisions, they found ways to share the responsibility and balance the potential consequences for the trainee with the need to protect their patients. Viewed through the lens of community of practice theory, the development of assessment 'shadow systems' indicates a lack of alignment between local workplace assessment practices and the prescribed programmatic assessment approach to high-stakes progress decisions. Avenues for improvement include cooperative development of formal assessment processes to better meet local needs or incorporating the information in 'shadow systems' into formal assessment processes.

"It's yours to take": generating learner feedback literacy in the workplace.

Feedback can improve students' learning and performance on clinical placements, yet students are often dissatisfied with the process. Attempts to improve feedback frequently focus on faculty development programs without addressing learners' capabilities to engage with feedback. For feedback to be effective, students need to understand its processes and to translate this into practice. Developing student feedback literacy may enhance feedback engagement and, therefore, learning outcomes. This qualitative interview study aimed to problematise student feedback literacy in the healthcare setting, from the learner's perspective. Before commencing placements, 105 healthcare students at an Australian teaching hospital participated in a feedback literacy program. After their placements, 27 students engaged in semi-structured interviews to explore their feedback experiences. Informed by workplace learning theory, interview transcripts were analysed using the framework method of qualitative analysis. Students reported reframing feedback as a process they could initiate and engage in, rather one they were subjected to. When they took an intentional stance, students noted that feedback conversations generated plans for improvement which they were enacting. However, students had to work hard against orthodox feedback expectations and habits in healthcare. They privileged intraprofessional supervisor feedback over interprofessional practitioners, patients, or peers. Findings suggest that student engagement with feedback can be augmented with focussed retraining. However, further research examining the structural and cultural influences on students' capacity to be active in workplace feedback is warranted.

Finding common ground: meta-synthesis of communication frameworks found in patient communication, supervision and simulation literature.

BACKGROUND: Effective communication between patients-clinicians, supervisors-learners and facilitators-participants within a simulation is a key priority in health profession education. There is a plethora of frameworks and recommendations to guide communication in each of these contexts, and they represent separate discourses with separate communities of practice and literature. Finding common ground within these frameworks has the potential to minimise cognitive load and maximise efficiency, which presents an opportunity to consolidate messages, strategies and skills throughout a communication curriculum and the possibility of expanding the research agenda regarding communication, feedback and debriefing in productive ways. METHODS: A meta-synthesis of the feedback, debriefing and clinical communication literature was conducted to achieve these objectives. RESULTS: Our analysis revealed that the concepts underlying the framework can be usefully categorised as stages, goals, strategies, micro-skills and meta-skills. Guidelines for conversations typically shared a common structure, and strategies aligned with a stage. Core transferrable communication skills (i.e., micro-skills) were identified across various types of conversation, and the major differences between frameworks were related to the way that power was distributed in the conversation and the evolution of conversations along the along the path of redistributing power. As part of the synthesis, an overarching framework "prepare-EMPOWER enact" was developed to capture these shared principles across discourses. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting frameworks for work-based communication that promote dialogue and empower individuals to contribute may represent an important step towards learner-centred education and person-centred care for patients.

Video-triggered professional learning for general practice trainers: using the 'cauldron of practice' to explore teaching and learning.

Many clinicians who take on a formal role of supervising or teaching trainees need to be taught how to teach and then continuously improve as educators. We describe the research-informed design of a novel professional development intervention that may be perceived by clinical educators as challenging, but being based on the key features of effective professional development is likely to lead to changes in their teaching practices. The video-club brings together a small group of clinical educators who have a shared interest in exploring their educator role and their teaching practices. It supports their learning through collective inquiry, using video-recordings of their authentic teaching practices as stimuli for discussion. A pilot has produced findings that are promising in terms of outcomes and impact. Participants responded to the educational design in the way that was envisioned and engaged with the requisite risk-taking and vulnerability that was necessary for their own learning and promoting learning for others.

Embracing the tension between vulnerability and credibility: 'intellectual candour' in health professions education.

The tension between expressing vulnerability and seeking credibility creates challenges for learning and teaching. This is particularly true in health care, in which practitioners are regarded as highly credible and making errors can often lead to dire consequences and blame. From a transformative learning perspective, expressing vulnerability may help individuals to access different ways of knowing. By contrast, from a sociological perspective, seeking to maintain credibility results in ritualised interactions and these ritualised encounters can reinforce credibility. One means of embracing this tension between expressing vulnerability and appearing credible is 'intellectual candour', an improvisational expression of doubts, thoughts and problems with the dual purpose of learning and promoting others' learning. Educators' revelations of inner struggles are proposed as a means of inviting reciprocal vulnerability. This builds trust and a platform for learning, particularly of the transformative nature. It also allows modelling of how to balance the vulnerability-credibility tension, which may provide a template for professional practice.

Theory, a lost character? As presented in general practice education research papers.

OBJECTIVES: The use of theory in research is reflected in its presence in research writing. Theory is often an ineffective presence in medical education research papers. To progress the effective use of theory in medical education, we need to understand how theory is presented in research papers. This study aims to elicit how theory is being written into general practice (GP) vocational education research papers in order to elucidate how theory might be more effectively used. This has relevance for the field of GP and for medical education more broadly. METHODS: This is a scoping review of the presentation of theory in GP vocational education research published between 2013 and 2017. An interpretive approach is taken. We frame research papers as a form of narrative and draw on the theories of Aristotle's poetics and Campbell's monomyth. We seek parallels between the roles of theory in a research story and theories of characterisation. RESULTS: A total of 23 papers were selected. Theories of 'reflective learning', 'communities of practice' and 'adult learning' were most used. Six tasks were assigned to theory: to align with a position; to identify a research problem; to serve as a vehicle for an idea; to provide a methodological tool; to interpret findings, and to represent an object of examination. The prominence of theory in the papers ranged from cameo to major roles. Depending on the way theory was used and the audience, theory had different impacts. There were parallels between the tasks assigned to theory and the roles of four of Campbell's archetypal characters. Campbell's typology offers guidance on how theory can be used in research paper 'stories'. CONCLUSIONS: Theory can be meaningfully present in the story of a research paper if it is assigned a role in a deliberate way and this is articulated. Attention to the character development of theory and its positioning in the research story is important.

Programme frequency, type, time and duration do not explain the effects of balance exercise in older adults: a systematic review with a meta-regression analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to examine the effects of different balance exercise interventions compared with non-balance exercise controls on balance task performance in older adults. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched until July 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised trials of balance exercise interventions for older adults were identified for extraction of eligible randomised trials. Eligibility criteria for inclusion of randomised trials in meta-analyses were comparison of a balance exercise intervention with a control group that did not perform balance exercises, report of at least one end-intervention balance outcome measurement that was consistent with the five subgroups of balance exercise identified, and full-text article available in English. RESULTS: Ninety-five trials were included in meta-analyses and 80 in meta-regressions. For four balance exercise types (control centre of mass, multidimensional, mobility and reaching), significant effects for balance exercise interventions were found in meta-analyses (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.31-0.50), however with considerable heterogeneity in observed effects (I2: 50.4%-80.6%). Risk of bias assessments (Physiotherapy Evidence Database score and funnel plots) did not explain heterogeneity. One significant relationship identified in the meta-regressions of SMD and balance exercise frequency, time and duration explained 2.1% of variance for the control centre of mass subgroup. CONCLUSION: Limitations to this study included the variability in design of balance interventions, incomplete reporting of data and statistical heterogeneity. The design of balance exercise programmes provides inadequate explanation of the observed benefits of these interventions.

Educators' behaviours during feedback in authentic clinical practice settings: an observational study and systematic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Verbal feedback plays a critical role in health professions education but it is not clear which components of effective feedback have been successfully translated from the literature into supervisory practice in the workplace, and which have not. The purpose of this study was to observe and systematically analyse educators' behaviours during authentic feedback episodes in contemporary clinical practice. METHODS: Educators and learners videoed themselves during formal feedback sessions in routine hospital training. Researchers compared educators' practice to a published set of 25 educator behaviours recommended for quality feedback. Individual educator behaviours were rated 0 = not seen, 1 = done somewhat, 2 = consistently done. To characterise individual educator's practice, their behaviour scores were summed. To describe how commonly each behaviour was observed across all the videos, mean scores were calculated. RESULTS: Researchers analysed 36 videos involving 34 educators (26 medical, 4 nursing, 4 physiotherapy professionals) and 35 learners across different health professions, specialties, levels of experience and gender. There was considerable variation in both educators' feedback practices, indicated by total scores for individual educators ranging from 5.7 to 34.2 (maximum possible 48), and how frequently specific feedback behaviours were seen across all the videos, indicated by mean scores for each behaviour ranging from 0.1 to 1.75 (maximum possible 2). Educators commonly provided performance analysis, described how the task should be performed, and were respectful and supportive. However a number of recommended feedback behaviours were rarely seen, such as clarifying the session purpose and expectations, promoting learner involvement, creating an action plan or arranging a subsequent review. CONCLUSIONS: These findings clarify contemporary feedback practice and inform the design of educational initiatives to help health professional educators and learners to better realise the potential of feedback.

'I will never ever go back': patients' written narratives of health care communication.

CONTEXT: Although communication with patients is essential to health care, education designed to develop patient-centred communication often ignores patients' voices. Patient stories may offer a means to explore patient experiences to inform patient-centred communication skills education design. OBJECTIVES: Our research questions were: (i) What are the features of patients' health care communication narratives? (ii) What differences exist between patient narratives evaluated as positive and those evaluated as negative? (iii) How do patients narrate emotion in their narratives? METHODS: This interpretivist research was underpinned by social constructionism. We employed a narrative approach to design an online questionnaire that was advertised to patients in the community. Analysis of the stories that were generated involved analysis of what was written (i.e. framework analysis) and of how it was written (i.e. attending to linguistic features). RESULTS: Participants shared 180 written narratives about previous health care professional (HCP) communication interactions. Narratives commonly included those of female patients seeking help for musculoskeletal or psychological concerns, which most frequently had occurred within the previous 6 months with male general practitioners in community settings. Framework analysis revealed four key themes: (i) patient actions during consultations; (ii) patient actions afterwards; (iii) lasting legacy, and (iv) interpersonal factors. Patients in narratives evaluated as positive actively engaged during and after interactions, had ongoing positive relationships with HCPs and felt valued in these relationships. Patients in narratives evaluated as negative were either passive or active during the interaction, but mostly failed to return to the HCP and felt devalued in their interaction. Further analysis of the linguistic features of select narratives revealed rich constructions of positive and negative emotions emphasising the lasting legacies of these interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of patient narratives provides a detailed way of exploring patients' experiences, emotions and behaviours during and after consultations. Educational implications include emphasising the importance of valuing the patient, and of seeking and acting on patient feedback to calibrate HCPs' patient-centred communication practices.

What should we teach the teachers? Identifying the learning priorities of clinical supervisors.

Clinicians who teach are essential for the health workforce but require faculty development to improve their educational skills. Curricula for faculty development programs are often based on expert frameworks without consideration of the learning priorities as defined by clinical supervisors themselves. We sought to inform these curricula by highlighting clinical supervisors own requirements through answering the research question: what do clinical supervisors identify as relative strengths and areas for improvement in their teaching practice? This mixed methods study employed a modified version of the Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire (mMCTQ) which included free-text reflections. Descriptive statistics were calculated and content analysis was conducted on textual comments. 481 (49%) of 978 clinical supervisors submitted their mMCTQs and associated reflections for the research study. Clinical supervisors self-identified relatively strong capability with interpersonal skills or attributes and indicated least capability with assisting learners to explore strengths, weaknesses and learning goals. The qualitative category 'establishing relationships' was the most reported strength with 224 responses. The qualitative category 'feedback' was the most reported area for improvement, with 151 responses. Key areas for curricular focus include: improving feedback practices; stimulating reflective and agentic learning; and managing the logistics of a clinical education environment. Clinical supervisors' self-identified needs provide a foundation for designing engaging and relevant faculty development programs.