Decision-Making Styles in Medical Students and Healthcare Professionals: The Roles of Personality Traits and Socio-Emotional Intelligence Factors.

Intuitive and deliberative styles can be considered the best-known decision-making styles, which are thought to be linked to actual workplace performance. However, there is a limited research on individual differences in these styles among individuals who provide healthcare. Therefore, adopting the self-report approach, this study examines the roles of the Big Five personality traits and socio-emotional intelligence factors in intuitive and deliberative decision-making styles among medical students and healthcare professionals. The research sample consists of 203 participants (50 medical students, 153 healthcare professionals) who completed the Big Five Inventory, the Trait Meta-Mood Scale, the Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale, and the Preference for Intuition and Deliberation Scale. The regression analyses revealed that attention to one's emotions and social information processing were positively related to intuitive decision-making style, while the clarity of one's emotions and social awareness were negatively related to intuitive decision-making style. It was further shown that conscientiousness, neuroticism, repair of one's emotions, and social information processing were positively related to deliberative decision-making style. The findings highlight the importance of personality and socio-emotional intelligence in understanding decision-making. Specifically, they point out that Big Five personality traits better explain deliberative style, while socio-emotional intelligence factors better explain intuitive style.

'We Ought to Be Professionals': Strategies of Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Emotion Regulation of Emergency Medical Services Professionals in Confrontation With the Death of a Newborn in Simulated Task.

Managing one's own and others' emotions is a necessary part of emergency medical services (EMS) professionals' work. For that reason, we explored their emotion regulation strategies in a simulated task which focused these skills. Short semistructured interviews were conducted with 48 EMS professionals immediately after completing the task. They described their experience during this task as distressing on a manageable level. Emergent emotion regulation strategies are largely in line with established theoretical frameworks, but their specification is unique and offers new insights. Focusing on the task along with emotional distancing is a crucial combination employed by many EMS professionals. Pre-existing cognitive frames also help with processing of emotional stimuli. Among interpersonal strategies, allowing the relatives of a deceased child to cope with their grief was the most typical reaction. However, attempts to distract them or positively reframe their situation were also present, along with few other strategies.

Prior Participation in Simulation Events Is Associated With Insimulation Team Performance Among Emergency Medical Services Professionals.

INTRODUCTION: Prior evidence has supported the use of high-fidelity simulation in initial emergency medical services (EMS) education, but there is a dearth of research on whether EMS professionals can also benefit from it. We sought to examine simulation use and years of practice as predictors of insimulation team performance among EMS professionals. The hypothesis is that both the prior participation in simulation events and the accumulated years of practice will predict insimulation performance. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted as part of a simulation-based EMS competition. Paramedic and physician teams were tested. Participants' years of EMS and healthcare practice and their prior participation in simulation events were assessed with a survey and correlated with performance in the competition. RESULTS: Participants were 120 EMS professionals from 51 teams, which was 75% of all competitors. They had in average 8.03 years of healthcare practice and 5.71 years of EMS practice and had previously participated in 4.34 simulation events. The prior participation in simulation events correlated significantly with EMS insimulation performance at the team level (r = 0.40-0.59). In contrast, neither the years of healthcare practice nor the years of EMS practice significantly predicted insimulation team performance. Furthermore, there was no interaction of simulation use and years of practice. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of simulation use are not limited to initial EMS education but spread also to experienced professionals. Even individuals who have been working in the field for many years may benefit from high-fidelity simulation. Future research should examine whether this also translates into better clinical performance.