How does portfolio use affect self-regulated learning in clinical workplace learning: What works, for whom, and in what contexts?

INTRODUCTION: Portfolio use to support self-regulated learning (SRL) during clinical workplace learning is widespread, but much is still unknown regarding its effectiveness. This review aimed to gain insight in the extent to which portfolio use supports SRL and under what circumstances. METHODS: A realist review was conducted in two phases. First, stakeholder interviews and a scoping search were used to formulate a program theory that explains how portfolio use could support SRL. Second, an in-depth literature search was conducted. The included papers were coded to extract context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOs). These were synthesized to answer the research question. RESULTS: Sixteen papers were included (four fulfilled all qualitative rigor criteria). Two primary portfolio mechanisms were established: documenting as a moment of contemplation (learners analyze experiences while writing portfolio reports) and documentation as a reminder of past events (previous portfolio reports aid recall). These mechanisms may explain the positive relationship between portfolio use and self-assessment, reflection, and feedback. However, other SRL outcomes were only supported to a limited extent: formulation of learning objectives and plans, and monitoring. The partial support of the program theory can be explained by interference of contextual factors (e.g., system of assessment) and portfolio-related mechanisms (e.g., mentoring). DISCUSSION: Portfolio research is falling short both theoretically-in defining and conceptualizing SRL-and methodologically. Nevertheless, this review indicates that portfolio use has potential to support SRL. However, the working mechanisms of portfolio use are easily disrupted. These disruptions seem to relate to tensions between different portfolio purposes, which may undermine learners' motivation.

Reaching consensus on GP interprofessional competencies: a nominal group study.

BACKGROUND: As the requirements for collaboration in primary care increase, effective interprofessional teamwork between GPs and other primary care professionals is crucial. The need for more training in interprofessional collaborative competencies is widely recognised. However, existing competency frameworks do not sufficiently specify interprofessional collaboration to guide interprofessional competency development. AIM: To reach consensus among GPs and other primary care professionals on interprofessional competencies that GP and GP trainees should learn. DESIGN & SETTING: A qualitative consensus study among Dutch GPs and other primary care professionals, all with expertise in primary care interprofessional collaborative practice. METHOD: Three nominal group sessions were held, each resulting in its own group consensus on GP interprofessional collaborative competencies. The researchers conducted a content analysis to merge and thematise the prioritised competencies into one list. Participants prioritised this list of competencies. A pre-set cut-off point was applied to determine the overall consensus on core GP interprofessional competencies. RESULTS: Eighteen professionals from nine different disciplines participated. The content analysis resulted in 31 unique competencies, of which 14 competencies were prioritised in the final ranking into the following three main themes: (1) professional identity development and role definition by the GP (three competencies); (2) developing and executing shared care plans for individual patients (six competencies); and (3) initiating and maintaining interprofessional collaborative partnerships (five competencies). CONCLUSION: An interprofessional group of experts reached consensus on 14 competencies within three themes. This framework provides a stepping stone for GPs to focus on their development regarding interprofessional collaboration.

Intraprofessional workplace learning in postgraduate medical education: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Residents need to be trained across the boundaries of their own specialty to prepare them for collaborative practice. Intraprofessional learning (i.e. between individuals of different disciplines within the same profession) has received little attention in the postgraduate medical education literature, in contrast to the extensive literature on interprofessional learning between individuals of different professions. To address this gap, we performed a scoping review to investigate what and how residents learn from workplace-related intraprofessional activities, and what factors influence learning. METHODS: The PRISMA guidelines were used to conduct a scoping review of empirical studies on intraprofessional workplace learning in postgraduate medical education published between 1 January 2000 to 16 April 2020 in Pubmed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC and Web of Science. This study applied 'best fit' framework-based synthesis to map the existing evidence, using the presage-process-product (3P) model developed by Tynjälä (2013). RESULTS: Four thousand three hundred thirty records were screened, and 37 articles were included. This review identified influencing (presage) factors that derived from the sociocultural environment, learner and learning context. Studies described that complexity of care can both facilitate and hinder learning. Furthermore, intraprofessional learning is threatened by professional stereotyping and negative perceptions, and awareness of learning opportunities and explicit reflection are critical in intraprofessional workplace learning. Studies described a range of informal and formal intraprofessional activities (process) under the headings of collaboration in clinical practice, rotations or placements, formal educational sessions and simulated workplace training. In general, learners responded well and their attitudes and perceptions improved, learners reported increased knowledge and skills and positive behavioural changes (product). Learning outcomes were reported in the domains of patient-centred care, collaborative attitudes and respect, mutual knowledge and understanding, collaborative decision making, communication, leadership, teamwork and reflexivity. CONCLUSIONS: This review gives insight into the high learning potential of intraprofessional activities. Many of the included studies relied on self-reported perceptions of change, therefore, future research should focus on generating more robust evidence including objectively examined outcome measures. This review offers a comprehensive overview of the factors that influence intraprofessional workplace learning in postgraduate medical education. Finally, we provide recommendations for enhancing intraprofessional learning in clinical practice.

Competencies for collaboration between general practitioners and medical specialists: a qualitative study of the patient perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the patient view of competencies essential for doctors to provide good collaboration at the primary-secondary care interface. DESIGN: We used a qualitative research approach. Focus groups with patients were conducted to explore their opinions of doctors' competencies to provide good collaboration between primary and secondary care doctors. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. SETTING: Dutch primary-secondary care interface. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen participants took part in five focus groups. Patients treated in both primary and secondary care, defined as having a minimum of two contacts with their general practitioner and two contacts with a medical specialty in the last 6 months, were included. Psychiatric patients and children were excluded from this study. RESULTS: Three groups of competencies were identified: (1) relationship building, both with patients and with other doctors; (2) transparent collaborating: be able to provide clarity on the process of collaboration and on roles and responsibilities of those involved and (3) reflective practising: to be willing to acknowledge mistakes, give and receive feedback and act as a lifelong learner. CONCLUSIONS: This focus group study enhances our understanding of the patient perspective on doctors' collaborative competencies at the primary-secondary care interface. With this information, doctors can improve their collaborative skills to a level that would meet their patients' needs. Patients expect doctors to be able to build relationships and act as reflective practitioners. Including patients in the collaborative process by giving them a role that is appropriate to their abilities and by making collaboration more explicit could help to improve collaboration between general practitioners and medical specialists.

What Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Kidney Disease Know, Think, and Feel about Their Disease: An In-Depth Interview Study.

INTRODUCTION: It is unknown what patients in primary care with mild-to-moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD) know, think, and feel about their diagnoses and how they value the information provided. The aim of the study was to explore their knowledge, thoughts, and experiences concerning their CKD and the information given to them. METHOD: Qualitative interview study with patients with mild-to-moderate CKD who know their diagnoses and are treated mainly by family physicians. RESULTS: Four themes arose: CKD literacy, coping with anxiety, prerequisites for self-management, and reciprocity in information provision. The participants filled deficiencies in their CKD knowledge with misconceptions and half-truth about causes, symptoms, and treatment. The anxiety about CKD at the time of diagnosis versus the feeling of irrelevance later on was due to the absence of CKD symptoms and their physicians' minimization of the seriousness of CKD. Participants failed to connect lifestyle and cardiovascular disease with CKD. Not all participants were well informed about the consequences that CKD might have. CKD literacy and willingness to change were both necessary to accept lifestyle changes. Further, the participants felt that it would be helpful when information comes with empathy and is tailored to patients' personal needs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients have various perceptions about their CKD. Exploring these perceptions could help match their needs with better-tailored information. Doctors should be aware that they can deliver inaccurate signals about CKD severity, so that patients fail to realize the potential impact of CKD. This makes them less open to lifestyle changes and improving their self-management.

General practitioners' perspectives on management of early-stage chronic kidney disease: a focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Guideline adherence in chronic kidney disease management is low, despite guideline implementation initiatives. Knowing general practitioners' (GPs') perspectives of management of early-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the applicability of the national interdisciplinary guideline could support strategies to improve quality of care. METHOD: Qualitative focus group study with 27 GPs in the Netherlands. Three analysts open-coded and comparatively analysed the data. Mind-mapping sessions were performed after data-saturation. RESULTS: Five themes emerged: defining CKD, knowledge and awareness, patient-physician interaction, organisation of CKD care and value of the guideline. A key finding was the abstractness of the CKD concept. The GPs expressed various perspectives about defining CKD and interpreting estimated glomerular filtration rates. Views about clinical relevance influenced the decision-making, although factual knowledge seems lacking. Striving to inform well enough without creating anxiety and to explain suitably for the intellectual ability of the patient caused tension in the patient-physician interaction. Integration with cardiovascular disease-management programmes was mentioned as a way of implementing CKD care in the future. The guideline was perceived as a rough guide rather than a leading document. CONCLUSION: CKD is perceived as an abstract rather than a clinical concept. Abstractness plays a role in all formulated themes. Management of CKD patients in primary care is complex and is influenced by physician-bound considerations related to individual knowledge and perception of the importance of CKD. Strategies are needed to improve GPs' understanding of the concept of CKD by education, a holistic approach to guidelines, and integration of CKD care into cardiovascular programmes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Learning intraprofessional collaboration by participating in a consultation programme: what and how did primary and secondary care trainees learn?

BACKGROUND: A growing number of patients require overview and management in both primary and secondary care. This situation requires that primary and secondary care professionals have well developed collaborative skills. While knowledge about interprofessional collaboration and education is rising, little is known about intraprofessional collaboration and education between physicians of various disciplines. This study examines a newly developed consultation programme for trainees in general practice and internal medicine to acquire intraprofessional collaboration skills. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with trainees and their supervisors and mentors to explore what and how the trainees learned by participating in the consultation programme. RESULTS: Trainees reported that they gained knowledge about and skills in collaboration and consultation they could not have gained otherwise. Furthermore, the programme gave the opportunity to gain other competencies relevant for becoming the medical expert trainees they are expected to be. Learning outcomes were comparable to those described in interprofessional education literature. Interaction, by meeting each other and by discussing cases with mentors or supervisors, appeared to be a key factor in the learning process. Meetings, discussing preconceptions and enthusiasm of the mentors and supervisors facilitated the learning. Technical problems and lack of information hampered the learning. These influencing factors are important for future development of intraprofessional learning programmes. CONCLUSIONS: Participants in an innovative consultation programme for GP- and IM-trainees reported that they acquired consultation and collaboration skills they could not have gained otherwise. Interaction appeared to be an important factor in the learning process. The findings of this study can inform developers of intraprofessional education programmes between primary and secondary care trainees.

Web-based consultation between general practitioners and nephrologists: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Background: Consultation of a nephrologist is important in aligning care for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) at the primary-secondary care interface. However, current consultation methods come with practical difficulties that can lead to postponed consultation or patient referral instead. Objective: This study aimed to investigate whether a web-based consultation platform, telenephrology, led to a lower referral rate of indicated patients. Furthermore, we assessed consultation rate, quality of care, costs and general practitioner (GPs') experiences with telenephrology. Methods: Cluster randomized controlled trial with 47 general practices in the Netherlands was randomized to access to telenephrology or to enhanced usual care. A total of 3004 CKD patients aged 18 years or older who were under primary care were included (intervention group n = 1277, control group n = 1727) and 2693 completed the trial. All practices participated in a CKD management course and were given an overview of their CKD patients. Results: The referral rates amounted to 2.3% (n = 29) in the intervention group and 3.0% (n = 52) in the control group, which was a non-significant difference, OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.23. The intervention group's consultation rate was 6.3% (n = 81) against 5.0% (n = 87) (OR 2.00; 95% CI 0.75-5.33). We found no difference in quality of care or costs. The majority of GPs had a positive opinion about telenephrology. Conclusion: The data in our study do not allow for conclusions on the effect of telenephrology on the rate of patient referrals and provider-to-provider consultations, compared to conventional methods. It was positively evaluated by GPs and was non-inferior in terms of quality of care and costs.

Adherence to chronic kidney disease guidelines in primary care patients is associated with comorbidity.

Background: GPs insufficiently follow guidelines regarding consultation and referral for chronic kidney disease (CKD). Objective: To identify patient characteristics and quality of care (QoC) in CKD patients with whom consultation and referral recommendations were not followed. Method: A 14 month prospective observational cohort study of primary care patients with CKD stage 3-5. 47 practices participated, serving 207469 people. 2547 CKD patients fulfilled consultation criteria, 225 fulfilled referral criteria. We compared characteristics of patients managed by GPs with patients receiving nephrologist co-management. We assessed QoC as adherence to monitoring criteria, CKD recognition and achievement of blood pressure (BP) targets. Results: Patients treated in primary care despite a consultation recommendation (94%) had higher eGFR values (OR 1.07; 95% CI: 1.05-1.09), were less often monitored for renal function (OR 0.42; 95% CI: 0.24-0.74) and potassium (OR 0.56; 95% CI: 0.35-0.92) and CKD was less frequently recognised (OR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.31-0.68) than in patients with nephrologist co-management. Patients treated in primary care despite referral recommendation (70%) were older (OR 1.03; 95% CI:1.01-1.06) and had less cardiovascular disease (OR 0.37; 95% CI: 0.19-0.73). Overall, in patients solely managed by GPs, CKD recognition was 50%, monitoring disease progression in 36% and metabolic parameters in 3%, BP targets were achieved in 51%. Monitoring of renal function and BP was positively associated with diabetes (OR 3.10; 95% CI: 2.47-3.88 and OR 7.78; 95% CI: 3.21-18.87) and hypertension (OR 3.19; 95% CI: 2.67-3.82 and OR 3.35; 95% CI: 1.45-7.77). Conclusion: Patients remaining in primary care despite nephrologists' co-management recommendations were inadequately monitored, and BP targets were insufficiently met. CKD patients without cardiovascular comorbidity or diabetes require extra attention to guarantee adequate monitoring of renal function and BP.

Quality of chronic kidney disease management in primary care: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Early detection and appropriate management of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care are essential to reduce morbidity and mortality. AIM: To assess the quality of care (QoC) of CKD in primary healthcare in relation to patient and practice characteristics in order to tailor improvement strategies. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective study using data between 2008 and 2011 from 47 general practices (207 469 patients of whom 162 562 were adults). METHOD: CKD management of patients under the care of their general practitioner (GP) was qualified using indicators derived from the Dutch interdisciplinary CKD guideline for primary care and nephrology and included (1) monitoring of renal function, albuminuria, blood pressure, and glucose, (2) monitoring of metabolic parameters, and alongside the guideline: (3) recognition of CKD. The outcome indicator was (4) achieving blood pressure targets. Multilevel logistic regression analysis was applied to identify associated patient and practice characteristics. RESULTS: Kidney function or albuminuria data were available for 59 728 adult patients; 9288 patients had CKD, of whom 8794 were under GP care. Monitoring of disease progression was complete in 42% of CKD patients, monitoring of metabolic parameters in 2%, and blood pressure target was reached in 43.1%. GPs documented CKD in 31.4% of CKD patients. High QoC was strongly associated with diabetes, and to a lesser extent with hypertension and male sex. CONCLUSION: Room for improvement was found in all aspects of CKD management. As QoC was higher in patients who received structured diabetes care, future CKD care may profit from more structured primary care management, e.g. according to the chronic care model. KEY POINTS: Quality of care for chronic kidney disease patients in primary care can be improved. In comparison with guideline advice, adequate monitoring of disease progression was observed in 42%, of metabolic parameters in 2%, correct recognition of impaired renal function in 31%, and reaching blood pressure targets in 43% of chronic kidney disease patients. Quality of care was higher in patients with diabetes. Chronic kidney disease management may be improved by developing strategies similar to diabetes care.

[Timely referral for predialysis; multiple players in the field]. / Tijdig verwijzen voor predialyse; veel spelers aan zet.

Timely referral is essential in patients with end-stage renal disease. Time is needed to inform the patient on the options of dialysis or kidney transplantation and for the placement of arteriovenous fistulae if haemodialysis is indicated; early referral is associated with lower morbidity and mortality. A prerequisite for timely referral is that patients with chronic kidney disease are recognised, which involves the following factors: chronic kidney disease should be mentioned in the patient's history; the patient should be informed of the diagnosis; and patients, general practitioners, pharmacists and specialists should have knowledge of the risk factors for acute-on-chronic kidney disease. Timely referral for predialysis requires optimal collaboration between the patient and many health care professionals.

Effect of shared care on blood pressure in patients with chronic kidney disease: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is highly prevalent in patients with diabetes or hypertension in primary care. A shared care model could improve quality of care in these patients AIM: To assess the effect of a shared care model in managing patients with CKD who also have diabetes or hypertension. Design and setting A cluster randomised controlled trial in nine general practices in The Netherlands. METHOD: Five practices were allocated to the shared care model and four practices to usual care for 1 year. Primary outcome was the achievement of blood pressure targets (130/80 mmHg) and lowering of blood pressure in patients with diabetes mellitus or hypertension and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)<60 ml/min/1.73 m(2). RESULTS: Data of 90 intervention and 74 control patients could be analysed. Blood pressure in the intervention group decreased with 8.1 (95% CI = 4.8 to 11.3)/1.1 (95% CI = -1.0 to 3.2) compared to -0.2 (95% CI = -3.8 to 3.3)/-0.5 (95% CI = -2.9 to 1.8) in the control group. Use of lipid-lowering drugs, angiotensin-system inhibitors and vitamin D was higher in the intervention group than in the control group (73% versus 51%, 81% versus 64%, and 15% versus 1%, respectively, [P = 0.004, P = 0.01, and P = 0.002]). CONCLUSION: A shared care model between GP, nurse practitioner and nephrologist is beneficial in reducing systolic blood pressure in patients with CKD in primary care.

Impact on cardiovascular risk follow-up from a shift to the CKD-EPI formula for eGFR reporting: a cross-sectional population-based primary care study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact on cardiovascular risk factor management in primary care by the introduction of chronic kidney disease epidemiological collaboration (CKD-EPI) for estimated-glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reporting. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study of routine healthcare provision in 47 primary care practices in The Netherlands with Modification of Diet and Renal Disease Study eGFR reporting. METHODS: eGFR values were recalculated using CKD-EPI in patients with available creatine tests. Patients reclassified from CKD stage 3a to CKD stage 2 eGFR range were compared to those who remained in stage 3a for differences in demographic variables, blood pressure, comorbidity, medication usage and laboratory results. RESULTS: Among the 60 673 adult patients (37% of adult population) with creatine values, applying the CKD-EPI equation resulted in a 16% net reduction in patients with CKD stage 3 or worse. Patients reclassified from stage 3a to 2 had lower systolic blood pressure (139.7 vs 143.3 mm Hg p<0.0001), higher diastolic blood pressure (81.5 vs 78.4 mm Hg p<0.0001) and higher cholesterol (5.4 vs 5.1 mmol/L p<0.0001) compared to those who remained in stage 3a. Of those reclassified out of a CKD diagnosis 463 (32%) had no comorbidities that would qualify for annual CVD risk factor assessment and 20 (12% of those with sufficient data) had a EuroSCORE CVD risk >20% within 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the CKD-EPI equation will result in many patients being removed from CKD registers and the associated follow-up. Current risk factor assessment in this group may be lacking from routine data and some patients within this group are at an increased risk for cardiovascular events.

Initial implementation of a web-based consultation process for patients with chronic kidney disease.

PURPOSE: A Web-based consultation system (telenephrology) enables family physicians to consult a nephrologist about a patient with chronic kidney disease. Relevant data are exported from the patient's electronic file to a protected digital environment from which advice can be formulated by the nephrologist. The primary purpose of this study was to assess the potential of telenephrology to reduce in-person referrals. METHODS: In an observational, prospective study, we analyzed telenephrology consultations by 28 family practices and 5 nephrology departments in the Netherlands between May 2009 and August 2011. The primary outcome was the potential reduction of in-person referrals, measured as the difference between the number of intended referrals as stated by the family physician and the number of referrals requested by the nephrologist. The secondary outcome was the usability of the system, expressed as time invested, the implementation in daily work hours, and the response time. Furthermore, we evaluated the questions asked. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two new consultations were included in the study. In the absence of telenephrology, 43 patients (35.3%) would have been referred by their family physicians, whereas the nephrologist considered referral necessary in only 17 patients (13.9%) (P <.001). The family physician would have treated 79 patients in primary care. The nephrologist deemed referral necessary for 10 of these patients. Time investment per consultation amounted to less than 10 minutes. Consultations were mainly performed during office hours. Response time was 1.6 days (95% CI, 1.2-1.9 days). Most questions concerned estimated glomerular filtration rate, proteinuria, and blood pressure. CONCLUSION: A Web-based consultation system might reduce the number of referrals and is usable. Telenephrology may contribute to an effective use of health facilities by allowing patients to be treated in primary care with remote support by a nephrologist.

A pharmacy medication alert system based on renal function in older patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes or cardiovascular disease are at risk of reduced renal function and frequently use drugs that interact with renal function. GPs monitor renal function in these patients. Computerised prescription systems produce alerts in patients labelled as having chronic kidney disease, but alerts are often ignored. If pharmacists use a pharmacy medication alert system (PMAS) based on renal function, they can provide the GP with therapeutic advice to optimise the medication. The extent of this advice and the feasibility in the clinical context are unknown. AIM: To assess the therapeutic advice formulated by pharmacists with help of a PMAS based on the renal function of patients aged ≥70 years with diabetes or cardiovascular disease. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational study in primary health care in the Netherlands. METHOD: GPs provided pharmacists with the renal function of older patients with diabetes or cardiovascular disease who were using target drugs, that is, drugs requiring therapeutic advice in patients with reduced renal function. With the help of a PMAS, pharmacists assessed the actual medication. The GP weighed the advice in relation to the clinical context of the individual patient. RESULTS: Six hundred and fifty patients were prescribed 1333 target drugs. Pharmacists formulated 143 therapeutic recommendations (11% of target drugs) concerning 89 patients (13.7% of study population). In 71 recommendations in 52 patients (8.0% of study population), the GP agreed immediately. CONCLUSION: The use of a PMAS resulted in therapeutic advice in 11% of the target drugs. After weighing the clinical context, the GP agreed with half of the advice.