RESUMO
PURPOSE: To explore the barriers and incentives that affect primary care providers who precept students in outpatient clinics in the US. METHOD: In 2013, leadership of our large primary care group sent a 20-question survey via e-mail to all of the 180 providers within the network. The survey assessed provider demographics, precepting history, learner preferences, and other issues that might affect future decisions about teaching. RESULTS: The response rate was 50% (90 providers). The top reasons for precepting in the past were enjoyment for teaching and personal interaction with learners. The most commonly cited reason for not precepting previously was a perceived lack of time followed by increased productivity demands. When questioned about the future, 65% (59 respondents) indicated that they were likely to precept within the next 6 months. A desired reduction in productivity expectations was the most commonly cited motivator, followed by anticipated monetary compensation and adjusted appointment times. A top barrier to future precepting was a belief that teaching decreases productivity and requires large amounts of time. CONCLUSION: This survey represents an opportunity to study a change in focus for a cohort of busy clinicians who were mostly new to teaching but not new to clinical practice. The survey provides further insight into clinician educators' perceptions regarding the education of a variety of different learners. The results align with data from previous studies in that time pressures and productivity demands transcend specific programs and learner backgrounds. This information is critical for future clerkship directors and hospital administrators in order to understand how to increase support for potential preceptors in medical education.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Many challenges arise in complex organizational interventions that threaten research integrity. This article describes a Tool for Evaluating Research Implementation Challenges (TECH), developed using a complexity science framework to assist research teams in assessing and managing these challenges. METHODS: During the implementation of a multi-site, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of organizational interventions to reduce resident falls in eight nursing homes, we inductively developed, and later codified the TECH. The TECH was developed through processes that emerged from interactions among research team members and nursing home staff participants, including a purposive use of complexity science principles. RESULTS: The TECH provided a structure to assess challenges systematically, consider their potential impact on intervention feasibility and fidelity, and determine actions to take. We codified the process into an algorithm that can be adopted or adapted for other research projects. We present selected examples of the use of the TECH that are relevant to many complex interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Complexity theory provides a useful lens through which research procedures can be developed to address implementation challenges that emerge from complex organizations and research designs. Sense-making is a group process in which diverse members interpret challenges when available information is ambiguous; the groups' interpretations provide cues for taking action. Sense-making facilitates the creation of safe environments for generating innovative solutions that balance research integrity and practical issues. The challenges encountered during implementation of complex interventions are often unpredictable; however, adoption of a systematic process will allow investigators to address them in a consistent yet flexible manner, protecting fidelity. Research integrity is also protected by allowing for appropriate adaptations to intervention protocols that preserve the feasibility of 'real world' interventions.