A phenomenology of direct observation in residency: Is Miller's 'does' level observable?

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines on direct observation (DO) present DO as an assessment of Miller's 'does' level, that is, the learner's ability to function independently in clinical situations. The literature, however, indicates that residents may behave 'inauthentically' when observed. To minimise this 'observer effect', learners are encouraged to 'do what they would normally do' so that they can receive feedback on their actual work behaviour. Recent phenomenological research on patients' experiences with DO challenges this approach; patients needed-and caused-some participation of the observing supervisor. Although guidelines advise supervisors to minimise their presence, we are poorly informed on how some deliberate supervisor participation affects residents' experience in DO situations. Therefore, we investigated what residents essentially experienced in DO situations. METHODS: We performed an interpretive phenomenological interview study, including six general practice (GP) residents. We collected and analysed our data, using the four phenomenological lenses of lived body, lived space, lived time and lived relationship. We grouped our open codes by interpreting what they revealed about common structures of residents' pre-reflective experiences. RESULTS: Residents experienced the observing supervisor not just as an observer or assessor. They also experienced them as both a senior colleague and as the patient's familiar GP, which led to many additional interactions. When residents tried to act as if the supervisor was not there, they could feel insecure and handicapped because the supervisor was there, changing the situation. DISCUSSION: Our results indicate that the 'observer effect' is much more material than was previously understood. Consequently, observing residents' 'authentic' behaviour at Miller's 'does' level, as if the supervisor was not there, seems impossible and a misleading concept: misleading, because it may frustrate residents and cause supervisors to neglect patients' and residents' needs in DO situations. We suggest that one-way DO is better replaced by bi-directional DO in working-and-learning-together sessions.

A phenomenological investigation of patients' experiences during direct observation in residency: busting the myth of the fly on the wall.

Direct observation (DO) of residents by supervisors is a highly recommended educational tool in postgraduate medical education, yet its uptake is poor. Residents and supervisors report various reasons for not engaging in DO. Some of these relate to their interaction with patients during DO. We do not know the patient perspectives on these interactions, nor, more broadly, what it is like to be a patient in a DO situation. Understanding the patient perspective may lead to a more complete understanding of the dynamics in DO situations, which may benefit patient wellbeing and improve the use of DO as an educational tool. We conducted a phenomenological interview study to investigate the experience of being a patient in a DO situation. Our analysis included multiple rounds of coding and identifying themes, and a final phase of phenomenological reduction to arrive at the essential elements of the experience. Constant reflexivity was at the heart of this process. Our results provide a new perspective on the role of the supervisor in DO situations. Patients were willing to address the resident, but sought moments of contact with, and some participation by, the supervisor. Consequently, conceptions of DO in which the supervisor thinks she is a fly on the wall rather than a part of the interaction, should be critically reviewed. To that end, we propose the concept of participative direct observation in workplace learning, which also acknowledges the observer's role as participant. Embracing this concept may benefit both patients' wellbeing and residents' learning.

Illness representations of type 2 diabetes patients are associated with perceptions of diabetes threat in relatives.

In the fight against the type 2 diabetes epidemic, patients might be asked to discuss familial susceptibility to type 2 diabetes in their family. Illness representations of patients (N = 546) were assessed to explore their impact on perceived type 2 diabetes threat in relatives. Reporting high type 2 diabetes burden, emotional impact and perceiving type 2 diabetes as an inheritable disease seemed to increase patients' family risk perception and worries about relatives' future health. Patients with coherent illness understanding reported positive beliefs regarding type 2 diabetes prevention in relatives. Findings may give direction in how illness representations may be used to guide patients in the process of family risk disclosure.

Health care providers' perspective on using family history in the prevention of type 2 diabetes: a qualitative study including different disciplines.

BACKGROUND: Family history (FH) is considered an important factor to detect individuals at increased risk developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). Moreover, FH information could be used to personalise risk messages, which are assumed to increase risk-reducing behaviours. In this study, we aimed to explore Dutch health care professionals' attitudes regarding current or future uptake of a more extensive use of FH information and the family system in diabetes prevention. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nineteen health care professionals from six general practices and four outpatient diabetes clinics. The use of FH information in opportunistic screening for T2D was explored, as well as the usability of a direct versus patient-mediated targeting strategy to reach persons with a FH of T2D. Three researchers analysed the interview transcripts separately. RESULTS: Dutch health care professionals considered FH an important risk factor in opportunistic screening for T2D. However, none of them used FH to promote risk-reducing behaviours. Directly targeting and educating patients known to have a FH of T2D was desirable for most primary care professionals, but not considered feasible. Findings indicated that FH information was not systematically gathered in primary care settings and electronic medical records were not equipped to retrieve persons with T2D running in their family. The idea of asking patients to pass on risk and preventive information was new to all interviewees, but was considered an acceptable strategy to reach persons with a FH of diabetes. Nevertheless, there were concerns about the accuracy of the messages delivered by the patients to their relatives. Practical barriers with regard to time, expertise, and financial reimbursement were also mentioned. CONCLUSIONS: There is great interest among healthcare professionals in primary as well as secondary care about the use of FH to prevent T2D, but there are significant barriers against such use. The removal of these barriers would depend on evidence showing the cost-effectiveness of FH-based strategies designed to prevent T2D.

Family communication as strategy in diabetes prevention: an observational study in families with Dutch and Surinamese South-Asian ancestry.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the possibility of utilizing family communication as a diabetes prevention strategy, specifically targeting high-risk families with South-Asian ancestry in The Netherlands. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, type 2 diabetes patients from Dutch (n=311) and Surinamese South-Asian (n=157) origin filled in a questionnaire assessing socio-demographic characteristics, beliefs and concerns about familial diabetes risk, primary prevention, and diabetes-related family communication. RESULTS: Discussing diabetes is regarded acceptable in most families. Especially Surinamese South-Asian patients (68%) seemed motivated to convey risk messages to their relatives; they reported a higher risk perception and expressed more concern than Dutch patients. While 40% in both groups thought relatives are able to prevent developing diabetes, 46% in Dutch and 33% in Surinamese South-Asian patients were unsure. CONCLUSION: Promoting family communication appears a feasible strategy in diabetes prevention in high-risk (Surinamese South-Asian) families. Health care providers should address patients' concern and emphasize opportunities for prevention. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Findings favor training of clinicians in utilizing a family approach as prevention strategy. Patients (particularly Surinamese South-Asians) are in need of professional help in the process of family risk disclosure. (Online) Educational tools should be made available at which patients can refer their relatives.

Changing the odds. What do we learn from prevention studies targeted at people with a positive family history of type 2 diabetes?

People with a positive family history of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are at high risk of developing diabetes. We set out to review the literature reporting on the development and/or evaluation of lifestyle interventions specifically aimed at prevention of T2DM in this group. Targeting people with a positive family history of T2DM seems so far an underutilized prevention strategy. They can and should be approached with the aim to raise risk awareness and promote healthy eating, weight loss and physical activity, thereby reducing their risk of developing diabetes.

"I am pregnant and my husband has diabetes. Is there a risk for my child?" A qualitative study of questions asked by email about the role of genetic susceptibility to diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes Mellitus is a global health problem. Scientific knowledge on the genetics of diabetes is expanding and is more and more utilised in clinical practice and primary prevention strategies. Health consumers have become increasingly interested in genetic information. In the Netherlands, the National Genetic Research and Information Center provides online information about the genetics of diabetes and thereby offers website visitors the opportunity to ask a question per email. The current study aims at exploring people's need of (additional) information about the role of inheritance in diabetes. Results may help to tailor existing clinical and public (online) genetic information to the needs of an increasing population at risk for diabetes. METHODS: A data base with emailed questions about diabetes and inheritance (n = 172) is used in a secondary content analysis. Questions are posted in 2005-2009 via a website providing information about more than 600 inheritable disorders, including all diabetes subtypes. Queries submitted were classified by contents as well as persons' demographic profiles. RESULTS: Questions were received by diabetes patients (49%), relatives (30%), and partners (21%). Questionnaires were relatively young (54.8% ≤ 30 years) and predominantly female (83%). Most queries related to type 1 diabetes and concerned topics related to (future) pregnancy and family planning. Questionnaires mainly asked for risk estimation, but also clarifying information (about genetics of diabetes in general) and advice (mostly related to family planning) was requested. Preventive advice to reduce own diabetes risk was hardly sought. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic information on diabetes provided by professionals or public health initiatives should address patients, as well as relatives and partners. In particular women are receptive to genetic information; they worry about the diabetes related health of (future) offspring. It seems important that information on the contribution of genetics to type 1 diabetes is more readily available. Considering the high prevalence of type 2 diabetes with strong evidence for a genetic predisposition, more effort seems needed to promote awareness around familial clustering and primary prevention.