Toward Constructive Change After Making a Medical Error: Recovery From Situations of Error Theory as a Psychosocial Model for Clinician Recovery.

BACKGROUND: Making a medical error is a uniquely challenging psychosocial experience for clinicians. Feelings of personal responsibility, coupled with distress regarding potential or actual patient harm resulting from a mistake, create a dual burden. Over the past 20 years, experiential accounts of making an error have provided evidence of the associated distress and impacts. However, theory-based psychosocial support interventions to improve both individual outcomes for the involved clinicians and system-level outcomes, such as patient safety and workforce retention, are lacking. There is a need for evidence-based ways to both structure and evaluate interventions to decrease the distress of making a medical error and its impacts. Such interventions play a role within wider programs of health professional support. We sought to address this by developing a testable, psychosocial model of clinician recovery after error based on recent evidence. METHODS: Systematic review methodology was used to identify studies published between January 2010 and June 2021 reporting experiences of direct involvement in medical errors and/or subsequent recovery. A narrative synthesis was produced from the resulting articles and used as the basis for a team-based qualitative approach to model building. RESULTS: We identified 25 studies eligible for inclusion, reporting evidence primarily from experiences of doctors and nurses. The identified evidence indicates that coping approach, conversations (whether they occur and whether they are perceived to be helpful or unhelpful), and learning or development activities (helpful, unhelpful or absent) may influence the relationship between making an error and both individual clinician outcomes of emotional impact and resultant practice change. Our findings led to the development of the Recovery from Situations of Error Theory model, which provides a preliminary theoretical basis for intervention development and testing. CONCLUSIONS: The Recovery from Situations of Error Theory model is the first testable psychosocial model of clinician recovery after making a medical error. Applying this model provides a basis to both structure and evaluate interventions to decrease the distress of making a medical error and its impacts and to support the replication of interventions that work across services and health systems toward constructive change. Such interventions may be embedded into the growing body of peer support and employee support programs internationally that address a diverse range of stressful workplace experiences.

A retrospective review of primary care research projects completed by medical students at University of New South Wales Medicine.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: It is important for medical students to learn how to conduct sound medical research by implementing their own research projects. This study describes the primary care research projects conducted by fourth-year medical students for their Independent Learning Project/Honours (ILP/Honours) at University of New South Wales (UNSW) Medicine. METHOD: A review was conducted of research projects undertaken by medical students at UNSW to determine the number and themes of projects on primary care topics, and the departments that supervised these projects. RESULTS: Of 3116 student research projects, 482 (15.5%) were on primary care topics. Major themes were mental health and substance abuse (90; 18.7%), aged care issues (67; 13.7%), common chronic diseases (63; 13.1%), and issues facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities (59; 12.2%). Only 134 (4.3% of the total 3116) research projects were supervised through departments with primary care academics. DISCUSSION: The ILP/Honours program gives medical students at UNSW Medicine an opportunity to conduct research on primary care topics. There needs to be more attention given to growing the research capacity of primary care academic departments.

Clinicians' experience of providing care: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Health care services internationally are refocussing care delivery towards patient centred, integrated care that utilises effective, efficient and innovative models of care to optimise patient outcomes and system sustainability. Whilst significant efforts have been made to examine and enhance patient experience, to date little has progressed in relation to provider experience. This review aims to explore this knowledge gap by capturing evidence of clinician experience, and how this experience is defined and measured in the context of health system change and innovation. METHODS: A rapid review of published and grey literature review was conducted utilising a rapid evidence assessment methodology. Seventy-nine studies retrieved from the literature were included in the review. Fourteen articles were identified from the grey literature search and one article obtained via hand searching. In total, 94 articles were included in the review. This study was commissioned by and co-designed with the New South Wales, Ministry of Health. RESULTS: Clinician experience of delivering health care is inconsistently defined in the literature, with identified articles lacking clarity regarding distinctions between experience, engagement and work-related outcomes such as job satisfaction. Clinician experience was commonly explored using qualitative research that focused on experiences of discrete health care activities or events in which a change was occurring. Such research enabled exploration of complex experiences. In these contexts, clinician experience was captured in terms of self-reported information that clinicians provided about the health care activity or event, their perceptions of its value, the lived impacts they experienced, and the specific behaviours they displayed in relation to the activity or event. Moreover, clinician's experience has been identified to have a paucity of measurement tools. CONCLUSION: Literature to date has not examined clinician experience in a holistic sense. In order to achieve the goals identified in relation to value-based care, further work is needed to conceptualise clinician experience and understand the nature of measurement tools required to assess this. In health system application, a broader 'clinician pulse' style assessment may be valuable to understand the experience of clinical work on a continuum rather than in the context of episodes of change/care.

The collaborative learning development exercise (CLeD-EX): an educational instrument to promote key collaborative learning behaviours in medical students.

BACKGROUND: Modern clinical practice increasingly relies on collaborative and team-based approaches to care. Regulatory bodies in medical education emphasise the need to develop collaboration and teamwork competencies and highlight the need to do so from an early stage of medical training. In undergraduate medical education, the focus is usually on collaborative learning, associated with feedback and reflection on this learning This article describes a novel educational instrument, the Collaborative Learning Development Exercise (CLeD-EX), which aims to foster the development of key collaborative learning competencies in medical students. In this article we report on the effectiveness, feasibility and educational impact of the CLeD-EX. METHODS: In this study, the "educational design research" framework was used to develop, implement and evaluate the CLeD-EX. This involved adopting a systematic approach towards designing a creative and innovative instrument which would help solve a real-world challenge in developing collaborative learning skills. The systematic approach involved a qualitative exploration of key collaborative learning behaviours which are influential in effective collaborative learning contexts. The identified competencies were employed in the design of the CLeD-EX. The design of the CLeD-EX included features to facilitate structured feedback by tutors to students, complemented by self-evaluation and reflection. The CLeD-EX was field-tested with volunteer junior medical students, using a controlled pre-test post-test design. Analysis of the completed CLeD-EX forms, self-perception surveys (i.e. pre-test and post-test surveys) and analyses of reflective reports were used to explore the educational impact of CLeD-EX, as well as its utility and practicality. RESULTS: After using the CLeD-EX, students showed a significant improvement in critical thinking and group process as measured by a previously validated instrument. Both students and tutors recognised CLeD-EX as an effective instrument, especially as a structured basis for giving and receiving feedback and for completing the feedback loop. CLeD-EX was also found to be feasible, practical and focused, while promoting learning and effective interactions in small group learning. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study support the introduction of an effective and feasible educational instrument such as the CLeD-EX, to facilitate the development of students' skills in collaborative learning.