Detección de las dudas y necesidades formativas de los médicos de familia en un centro de salud / Detecting doubts and training needs of family doctors of a health centre

OBJETIVO: Detectar las dudas y las necesidades formativas de los médicos de familia de un centro de salud urbano y docente durante la práctica clínica habitual. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio descriptivo transversal de un mes de duración en un centro de salud urbano de Madrid. Los médicos de familia del equipo fueron entrevistados tras la consulta sobre las dudas que habían tenido, eligiendo dos de ellas. Las dudas no resueltas en las dos semanas siguientes se agruparon por materias y según las taxonomías vigentes. Posteriormente se elaboró un programa docente para resolverlas. RESULTADOS: Participaron 19 de los 21 médicos del centro, y en el periodo de estudio atendieron a 10.678 pacientes. Se detectaron 0,44 dudas por cada 10 pacientes atendidos. De las 384 dudas elegidas, el 83,34% fueron clínicas y el 16,66%, no clínicas. El 51,2% de estas quedaron sin resolver en los 15días tras la consulta. Los métodos para su resolución fueron las bases científicas de internet (PubMed, UpToDate y guías de práctica clínica, principalmente; 38%), seguido de la consulta a otros colegas (34,9%). CONCLUSIONES: La mayoría de las dudas generadas durante la consulta son clínicas, aunque existe una carga importante de preguntas burocráticas. Más de la mitad de las dudas no se resuelven durante la consulta ni en los 15días posteriores. Las bases de datos científicas en internet son la principal fuente de información, seguida de la consulta a otros colegas. Deberían mejorar los tiempos por paciente y el acceso a fuentes de información fiables y ágiles, para mejorar estos aspectos

OBJECTIVE: To detect doubts and training needs in an urban health and family doctor training centre during the usual practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted for one month in an urban health centre in Madrid. Family doctors were interviewed after their daily clinics about the doubts they had identified, choosing two of them. Unresolved questions were grouped by subject and according to the current taxonomies. A teaching program was then developed to tackle them. RESULTS: Out of a total 21 physicians of the centre, 19 attended 10,678 patients during the period. The doubt detection rate was 0.44 doubts for every 10 patients attended. Of the 384 questions chosen, 83.34% were clinical and 16.66% were non-clinical. Just over half (51.2%) of these were still unresolved 15days later the consultation event. The main methods for their resolution were using the scientific bases on the internet (mainly PubMed, UpToDate and Clinical Practice Guidelines; 38%), followed by consultation with other colleagues (34.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Most of the doubts generated during clinics were clinical, although there is a significant burden of bureaucratic questions. More than half of the doubts are not resolved during the consultation or within the following 15days. The scientific databases on the internet are the main sources of information, although consulting other colleagues was often used as well. Additional time for dealing with patients and enhanced access to solve complex questions should be available to improve the success rate

[Detecting doubts and training needs of family doctors of a health centre]. / Detección de las dudas y necesidades formativas de los médicos de familia en un centro de salud.

OBJECTIVE: To detect doubts and training needs in an urban health and family doctor training centre during the usual practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted for one month in an urban health centre in Madrid. Family doctors were interviewed after their daily clinics about the doubts they had identified, choosing two of them. Unresolved questions were grouped by subject and according to the current taxonomies. A teaching program was then developed to tackle them. RESULTS: Out of a total 21 physicians of the centre, 19 attended 10,678 patients during the period. The doubt detection rate was 0.44 doubts for every 10 patients attended. Of the 384 questions chosen, 83.34% were clinical and 16.66% were non-clinical. Just over half (51.2%) of these were still unresolved 15days later the consultation event. The main methods for their resolution were using the scientific bases on the internet (mainly PubMed, UpToDate and Clinical Practice Guidelines; 38%), followed by consultation with other colleagues (34.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Most of the doubts generated during clinics were clinical, although there is a significant burden of bureaucratic questions. More than half of the doubts are not resolved during the consultation or within the following 15days. The scientific databases on the internet are the main sources of information, although consulting other colleagues was often used as well. Additional time for dealing with patients and enhanced access to solve complex questions should be available to improve the success rate.