Integrated and implicit: how residents learn CanMEDS roles by participating in practice.

CONTEXT: Learning outcomes for residency training are defined in competency frameworks such as the CanMEDS framework, which ultimately aim to better prepare residents for their future tasks. Although residents' training relies heavily on learning through participation in the workplace under the supervision of a specialist, it remains unclear how the CanMEDS framework informs practice-based learning and daily interactions between residents and supervisors. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore how the CanMEDS framework informs residents' practice-based training and interactions with supervisors. METHODS: Constructivist grounded theory guided iterative data collection and analyses. Data were collected by direct observations of residents and supervisors, combined with formal and field interviews. We progressively arrived at an explanatory theory by coding and interpreting the data, building provisional theories and through continuous conversations. Data analysis drew on sensitising insights from communities of practice theory, which provided this study with a social learning perspective. RESULTS: CanMEDS roles occurred in an integrated fashion and usually remained implicit during interactions. The language of CanMEDS was not adopted in clinical practice, which seemed to impede explicit learning interactions. The CanMEDS framework seemed only one of many factors of influence in practice-based training: patient records and other documents were highly influential in daily activities and did not always correspond with CanMEDS roles. Additionally, the position of residents seemed too peripheral to allow them to learn certain aspects of the Health Advocate and Leader roles. CONCLUSIONS: The CanMEDS framework did not really guide supervisors' and residents' practice or interactions. It was not explicitly used as a common language in which to talk about resident performance and roles. Therefore, the extent to which CanMEDS actually helps improve residents' learning trajectories and conversations between residents and supervisors about residents' progress remains questionable. This study highlights the fact that the reification of competency frameworks into the complexity of practice-based learning is not a straightforward exercise.

A feedback system in residency to evaluate CanMEDS roles and provide high-quality feedback: Exploring its application.

INTRODUCTION: Residents benefit from regular, high quality feedback on all CanMEDS roles during their training. However, feedback mostly concerns Medical Expert, leaving the other roles behind. A feedback system was developed to guide supervisors in providing feedback on CanMEDS roles. We analyzed whether feedback was provided on the intended roles and explored differences in quality of written feedback. METHODS: In the feedback system, CanMEDS roles were assigned to five authentic situations: Patient Encounter, Morning Report, On-call, CAT, and Oral Presentation. Quality of feedback was operationalized as specificity and inclusion of strengths and improvement points. Differences in specificity between roles were tested with Mann-Whitney U tests with a Bonferroni correction (α = 0.003). RESULTS: Supervisors (n = 126) provided residents (n = 120) with feedback (591 times). Feedback was provided on the intended roles, most frequently on Scholar (78%) and Communicator (71%); least on Manager (47%), and Collaborator (56%). Strengths (78%) were mentioned more frequently than improvement points (52%), which were lacking in 40% of the feedback on Manager, Professional, and Collaborator. Feedback on Scholar was more frequently (p = 0.000) and on Reflective Professional was less frequently (p = 0.003) specific. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Assigning roles to authentic situations guides supervisors in providing feedback on different CanMEDS roles. We recommend additional supervisor training on how to observe and evaluate the roles.

Supervisor leadership in relation to resident job satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Research from outside the medical field shows that leadership behaviours influence job satisfaction. Whether the same is true for the medical training setting needs to be explored. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of residents' overall appreciation of their supervisor's leadership and observation of specific supervisor leadership behaviours on job satisfaction. METHODS: We invited residents (N = 117) to rate how often they observed certain task and relation-oriented leadership behaviours in their supervisor and overall appreciation of their supervisor's leadership. Furthermore, they rated their satisfaction with 13 different aspects of their jobs on a 10-point scale. Using exploratory factor analysis we identified four factors covering different types of job satisfaction aspects: personal growth, autonomy, affective, and instrumental job satisfaction aspects. Influence of overall appreciation for supervisor leadership and observation of certain leadership behaviours on these job satisfaction factors were analysed using multiple regression analyses. RESULTS: The affective aspects of job satisfaction were positively influenced by overall appreciation of leadership (B = 0.792, p = 0.017), observation of specific instructions (B = 0.972, p = 0.008) and two-way communication (B = 1.376, p = 0.008) and negatively by mutual decision-making (B = -1.285, p = 0.007). No effects were found for the other three factors of job satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that supervisors become more aware of whether and how their behaviours influence residents' job satisfaction. Especially providing specific instructions and using two-way communication seem important to help residents deal with their insecurities and to offer them support.

Leadership in the clinical workplace: what residents report to observe and supervisors report to display: an exploratory questionnaire study.

BACKGROUND: Within the current health care system, leadership is considered important for physicians. leadership is mostly self-taught, through observing and practicing. Does the practice environment offer residents enough opportunities to observe the supervisor leadership behaviours they have to learn? In the current study we investigate which leadership behaviours residents observe throughout their training, which behaviours supervisors report to display and whether residents and supervisors have a need for more formal training. METHODS: We performed two questionnaire studies. Study 1: Residents (n = 117) answered questions about the extent to which they observed four basic and observable Situational Leadership behaviours in their supervisors. Study 2: Supervisors (n = 201) answered questions about the extent to which they perceived to display these Situational Leadership behaviours in medical practice. We asked both groups of participants whether they experienced a need for formal leadership training. RESULTS: One-third of the residents did not observe the four basic Situational Leadership behaviours. The same pattern was found among starting, intermediate and experienced residents. Moreover, not all supervisors showed these 4 leadership behaviours. Both supervisors and residents expressed a need for formal leadership training. CONCLUSION: Both findings together suggest that current practice does not offer residents enough opportunities to acquire these leadership behaviours by solely observing their supervisors. Moreover, residents and supervisors both express a need for more formal leadership training. More explicit attention should be paid to leadership development, for example by providing formal leadership training for supervisors and residents.

How Different Medical School Selection Processes Call upon Different Personality Characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Research indicates that certain personality traits relate to performance in the medical profession. Yet, personality testing during selection seems ineffective. In this study, we examine the extent to which different medical school selection processes call upon desirable personality characteristics in applicants. METHODS: 1019 of all 1055 students who entered the Dutch Bachelor of Medicine at University of Groningen, the Netherlands in 2009, 2010 and 2011 were included in this study. Students were admitted based on either top pre-university grades (n = 139), acceptance in a voluntary multifaceted selection process (n = 286), or lottery weighted for pre-university GPA. Within the lottery group, we distinguished between students who had not participated (n = 284) and students who were initially rejected (n = 310) in the voluntary selection process. Two months after admission, personality was assessed with the NEO-FFI, a measure of the five factor model of personality. We performed ANCOVA modelling with gender as a covariate to examine personality differences between the four groups. RESULTS: The multifaceted selection group scored higher on extraversion than all other groups(p<0.01), higher on conscientiousness than both lottery-admitted groups(p<0.01), and lower on neuroticism than the lottery-admitted group that had not participated in the voluntary selection process. The latter group scored lower on conscientiousness than all other groups(p<0.05) and lower on agreeableness than the multifaceted selection group and the top pre-university group(p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Differences between the four admission groups, though statistically significant, were relatively small. Personality scores in the group admitted through the voluntary multifaceted selection process seemed most fit for the medical profession. Personality scores in the lottery-admitted group that had not participated in this process seemed least fit for the medical profession. It seems that in order to select applicants with suitable personalities, an admission process that calls upon desirable personality characteristics is beneficial.