How physicians teach in the clinical setting: The embedded roles of teaching and clinical care.

BACKGROUND: Clinical teaching lies at the heart of medical education. However, few studies have explored the embedded nature of teaching and clinical care. The goal of this study was to examine the process of clinical teaching as it naturally, and spontaneously, unfolds in a broad range of authentic contexts with medical students and residents. METHODS: This focused ethnographic study consisted of 160 hours of participant observation and field interviews with three internal medicine teams. Thematic analysis guided data organization and interpretation. FINDINGS: Three overlapping themes emerged: the interconnectedness between clinical work and pedagogy; a multiplicity of teachers; and the influence of space and artifacts on teaching and learning. Clinical teaching, which was deeply embedded in clinical care, was influenced by the acuity of patient problems, learner needs, and the context in which teaching unfolded; it also occurred on a spectrum that included planned, opportunistic, formal, and informal teaching (and learning). CONCLUSIONS: Study findings suggest that clinical teaching, which is marked by an intersection between service and teaching, can be viewed as an example of work-based teaching. They also yield suggestions for the enhancement of clinical teaching in inpatient settings, faculty development, and educational policies that recognize clinical teaching and learning.

Evaluating a new objective grading software for conjunctival hyperaemia.

BACKGROUND/ AIMS: Standardised numeric grading scales are used in ophthalmic practice to improve consistency between clinicians in recording the severity of ocular conditions and to facilitate the monitoring of such changes. We investigated the intra- and inter-observer grading reliability and the agreement between subjective Cornea and Contact Lens Research Unit (CCLRU) and Efron grading scales as well as a new Advanced Ophthalmic Systems (AOS) software which uses an objective approach to grading conjunctival hyperaemia. METHODS: One experienced observer graded n = 30 bulbar and n = 26 palpebral conjunctival hyperaemia images to 0.1 increments. Masked grading of randomised images was undertaken for all three methods, on two separate occasions. The agreement within and between the grading methods was assessed between sessions, and compared to the results of a novice observer. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) between test and retest values. However, repeatability in the grading estimates of both bulbar and palpebral conjunctival hyperaemia was improved using the AOS grading method (R2 = 0.998; Coefficient of Repeatability CoR 0.10-0.13), compared to Efron (R2 = 0.926; CoR 0.62) and CCLRU (R2 = 0.885-0.911; CoR 0.50-0.78). Intraclass coefficient correlations (ICC) improved inter-observer agreement using objective (> 0.995) versus subjective methods (0.853-0.959). CONCLUSION: These subjective and objective grading methods are not interchangeable. Due to the excellent repeatability and improved agreement between experienced and novice observers, the objective grading method provides a more consistent approach when grading ocular abnormalities and may achieve greater reliability in record keeping and clinical monitoring in the future.