The development of clinical thinking in trainee physicians: the educator perspective.

BACKGROUND: An important element of effective clinical practice is the way physicians think when they encounter a clinical situation, with a significant number of trainee physicians challenged by translating their learning into professional practice in the clinical setting. This research explores the perceptions of educators about how trainee physicians develop their clinical thinking in clinical settings. It considers what educators and their colleagues did to help, as well as the nature of the context in which they worked. METHOD: A qualitative approach was used in this study with in depth interviews carried out with educators as key informants. Rich data derived from 15 interview transcripts were analysed thematically in a rigorous and iterative process. RESULTS: Three broad and overlapping themes were identified: working in an educationally minded culture; proximity of the educator to the trainee physician; and trajectory of the trainee physician. The departments in which these educators worked emphasised the importance for the education of trainee physicians. All members of the team were responsible for education of the team, and all members, particularly senior nurses, were able to give feedback upon the trainee physicians' progress. Educators described working side by side with their trainee physician and frequently being in close proximity to them which means that the educator was both easily accessible and spent more time with their trainee physicians. They described a trajectory of the trainee physicians through the placement with close monitoring and informal assessment throughout. CONCLUSION: Recommendations are made as to how trainee physicians can be supported to develop their clinical thinking. Educators and managers can analyse their own and their department's practice and select the recommendations relevant to their local circumstances in order to make change. This study adds the educator perspective to a body of literature about the importance of context and supportive learning environments. As such the discussion is applicable to the education of other health professionals.

How Do Contexts Affect Physicians' Clinical Reasoning? A Narrative Review.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Background Research about clinical reasoning has tended to focus on the individual, assessing their ability to perform clinical reasoning tasks. However, recent studies have noted that clinical reasoning varies with the clinical context. Objectives The purpose of this narrative review is to examine how the context can affect physicians clinical reasoning skills. Methods A narrative literature review was conducted by searching PubMed, PsycINFO and Embase via Ovid using the search terms clinical OR critical AND thinking OR judgement OR reasoning. Of 22,296 results found, 25 studies were found to be relevant to our review. Results Most studies focused on diagnostic skills. Contexts affecting clinical reasoning fell into three broad categories: patient, physician and environmental (the physical and social setting) factors. Patient contexts researched included factors both personal to the patient and their physical disease manifestations. Physician contexts included experience, age, exposure to similar diagnoses, incorrect diagnostic suggestion, emotions, and the use of reflection and checklists. Environmental contexts included time pressure, unfamiliarity with surroundings, dealing with uncertainty and high-stakes outcomes. The effect of applying more than one contextual factor increasing cognitive load, was explored. Conclusion This original review suggests that the context can affect a physician's clinical reasoning abilities. This review identifies areas for continued research, including which contexts have a negative or positive impact, and the effect of multiple contexts (cognitive loading) on clinical reasoning. Further empirical research is needed to investigate these areas in more depth and to establish how far these benefits have an impact in practice.

Collaborative engagement with colleagues may provide better care for 'heart-sink' patients.

INTRODUCTION: In this article we show how a group of general practitioners' (GPs') professionalism was enhanced through collaborative engagement. Complexity, uncertainty and so-called 'heart-sink' patients are naturally embedded in clinical practice. GPs need to deal with, and even embrace, uncertainty, enabling them to provide patient-centred care. METHODS: A relatively fixed group of Danish GPs have met regularly for more than 14 years, discussing difficult and complex cases. Their experiences were researched through two focus group interviews using semi-structured interviews comprising open and closed questions, which were audiotaped and transcribed. The qualitative findings were analysed employing grounded theory principles. RESULTS: Participation in the GP group was perceived to have had a positive impact on participants' personal and professional lives by reducing the number of 'heart-sink' patients, by strengthening their ability to reflect and deal with uncertainty, by boosting self-confidence by improved professional selfawareness, by providing them with a safe environment and by enhancing their working enjoyment and professional motivation. A number of features of the group's structure and ways of working, which appear to have secured the long-lasting sustainability of the group, have been identified. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This group of Danish GPs experienced personal and professional growth through collaborative engagement. They have apparently learned to embrace and even value the fundamental uncertain and complex nature of primary care, which seems to benefit their 'heart-sink' patients. The features, which have ensured the long-lasting sustainability of this group, could perhaps inspire other younger GPs to work in such reflective groups.

The intensive training and assessment programme in histopathology.

A large number of experienced overseas graduates are attracted to the UK and form a significant proportion of applicants for training positions in histopathology. An individually tailored 3-month post can be used to evaluate the overseas doctor's abilities and assess his/her suitability for higher specialist training.

Self-management in diabetes: training implications for professional carers.

A workshop was convened to examine factors determining patient self-management and implications for those providing care. It was attended by 15 doctors and 15 nurses with considerable expertise in education for those with diabetes. Discussion included: the experience of training programmes to date; factors determining effective patient self-management; the implications for training of professionals, skills required, their current availability and proposals for their development. The conclusions were that training and experience of these skills are both inadequate. Programmes of training, which are equally applicable to the management of other chronic diseases, should be embedded in the system of care and delivered at local level. Regional or national programmes are required to develop trainers in all districts able to deliver and maintain local programmes. This critical element of care in diabetes must be adequately funded if self-care standards are to be improved and expensive complications prevented.

Enhancing reliability in portfolio assessment: discussions between assessors.

This paper reports the reliability in assessments of a series of portfolios assembled by a cohort of participants attending a course for prospective general practice trainers. Initial individual assessments are compared with open discussion between random pairs of assessors to produce paired composite scores, and analysed using kappa statistics. Overall reliability of a global pass/refer judgement improved from a kappa of 0.26 (fair) using individual assessment, to 0.5 (moderate) with paired discussants.

Developing professional judgment.

The concept of professional judgment is considered, including its theoretical foundations, how it is developed, and how it may be assessed. Professionals are asked to engage in complex and unpredictable tasks on society's behalf, and in doing so must exercise their discretion, making judgments--decide what is "best" in the particular situation rather than what is "right" in some absolute sense. Inevitably, some of these judgments lead to "error," which is endemic to professional practice. This challenges some current ideologies in health care regarding the primacy of evidence-based practice and the application of protocols. At the foundation of professional judgment is a form of knowledge--called practical wisdom--which is not formally taught and learnt but is acquired largely through experience and informal conversations with respected peers. Wisdom develops through "the critical reconstruction of practice," including deliberation, which is distinguished from mere reflection. Professionals need to engage in the appreciation of their practice--not just to understand what informs their own practice but to consider critically the contestable issues endemic to practicing as a professional.

Enhancing reliability in portfolio assessment: 'shaping' the portfolio.

This paper reports a follow-on project that assessed a series of portfolios assembled by a cohort of participants attending a course for prospective general practice trainers. In an attempt to enhance reliability, a framework for defining and addressing problems using a reflective practice model was offered to participants. The reliability of the judgements made by a panel of assessors about individual 'components', together with an overall global judgement about performance were studied. The reliability of individual assessors' judgements (i.e. their consistency) was moderate, but inter-rater reliability did not reach a level that could support making a safe summative judgement. Despite offering a possible structure for demonstrating reflective processes, the levels of reliability reached were similar to the earlier work and other subjective assessments generally, and perhaps reflected individuality of personal agendas of both the assessed and the assessors, and variations in portfolio structure and content; even agreement among the assessors about evidence of the framework being used was poor. Suggestions for approaches in the future are made. The conclusion remains that while portfolios might be valuable as resources for learning, as assessment tools they should be treated as problematic.