How core competencies are taught during clinical supervision: participatory action research in family medicine.

OBJECTIVES: The development of professional competence is the main goal of residency training. Clinical supervision is the most commonly used teaching and learning method for the development of core competencies (CCs). The literature provides little information on how to encourage the learning of CCs through supervision. We undertook an exploratory study to describe if and how CCs were addressed during supervision in a family medicine residency programme. METHODS: We selected a participatory action research design to engage participants in exploring their precepting practices. Eleven volunteer faculty staff and six residents from a large family medicine residency programme took part in a 9-month process which included three focus group encounters alternating with data gathering during supervision. We used mostly qualitative methods for data collection and analysis, with thematic content analysis, triangulation of sources and of researchers, and member checking. RESULTS: Participants realised that they addressed all CCs listed as programme outcomes during clinical supervision, albeit implicitly and intuitively, and often unconsciously and superficially. We identified a series of factors that influenced the discussion of CCs: (i) CCs must be both known and valued; (ii) discussion of CCs occurs in a constant adaptation to numerous contextual factors, such as residents' characteristics; (iii) the teaching and learning of CCs is influenced by six challenges in the preceptor-resident interaction, such as residents' active engagement, and (iv) coherence with other curricular elements contributes to learning about CCs. Differences between residents' and preceptors' perspectives are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first descriptive study focusing on the teaching of CCs during clinical supervision, as experienced in a family medicine residency programme. Content and process issues were equally influential on the discussion of CCs. Our findings led to a representation of factors determining the teaching and learning of CCs in supervision, and suggest directions for research, for faculty development, and for interventions with learners.

Training in interprofessional collaboration: pedagogic innovation in family medicine units.

PROBLEM ADDRESSED: A number of agencies that accredit university health sciences programs recently added standards for the acquisition of knowledge and skills with respect to interprofessional collaboration. Within primary care settings there are no practical training programs that allow students from different disciplines to develop competencies in this area. OBJECTIVE OF THE PROGRAM: The training program was developed within family medicine units affiliated with Université Laval in Quebec for family medicine residents and trainees from various disciplines to develop competencies in patient-centred, interprofessional collaborative practice in primary care. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Based on adult learning theories, the program was divided into 3 phases--preparing family medicine unit professionals, training preceptors, and training the residents and trainees. The program's pedagogic strategies allowed participants to learn with, from, and about one another while preparing them to engage in contemporary primary care practices. A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods was used to evaluate the implementation process and the immediate results of the training program. CONCLUSION: The training program had a positive effect on both the clinical settings and the students. Preparation of clinical settings is an important issue that must be considered when planning practical interprofessional training.

Primary health care professionals' views on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework in practice.

OBJECTIVE: To describe primary health care professionals' views on barriers and facilitators for implementing the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) in their practice. METHODS: Thirteen focus groups with 118 primary health care professionals were performed. A taxonomy of barriers and facilitators to implementing clinical practice guidelines was used to content-analyse the following sources: reports from each workshop, field notes from the principal investigator and written materials collected from the participants. RESULTS: Applicability of the ODSF to the practice population, process outcome expectation, asking patients about their preferred role in decision making, perception that the ODSF was modifiable, time issues, familiarity with the ODSF and its practicability were the most frequently identified both as barriers as well as facilitators. Forgetting about the ODSF, interpretation of evidence, challenge to autonomy and total lack of agreement with using the ODSF in general were identified only as barriers. Asking about values, health professional's outcome expectation, compatibility with the patient-centered approach or the evidence-based approach, ease of understanding and implementation, and ease of communicating the ODSF were identified only as facilitators. CONCLUSION: These results provide insight on the type of interventions that could be developed in order to implement the ODSF in academic primary care practice. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Interventions to implement the ODSF in primary care practice will need to address a broad range of factors at the levels of the health professionals, the patients and the health care system.

Supporting patients facing difficult health care decisions: use of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate family physicians' views on factors that make health care decisions difficult for patients, interventions family physicians use to support patients making decisions, and interventions proposed by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF). DESIGN: Thirteen group discussions. SETTING: Five family practice units. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty family physicians. INTERVENTIONS: The multifaceted implementation intervention consisted of feedback from participants, a reminder at point of care, and an interactive workshop. During the workshop, family physicians were asked about their views on 2 videos both showing the concluding phase of a simulated clinical encounter with a woman facing a decision about hormone therapy. One video showed usual care; the other showed use of the ODSF process and related tools. Content was analyzed using observations by non-participants, field notes, material collected from participants during workshops, evaluation forms completed at the end of workshops, and comments written on exit questionnaires from the implementation trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Family physicians' views on the types of difficult decisions their patients face, the factors that make decisions difficult for patients, the interventions family physicians use to support patients' decisions, and the interventions proposed by the ODSF. RESULTS: The 2 most frequently cited factors making decisions difficult for patients were experiencing uncertainty and fears about adverse outcomes. Before being introduced to the ODSF, participants had used mostly information-related strategies to provide decision support. After learning about the ODSF, participants overwhelmingly identified assessing patients' values as a priority. At the end of the workshop, the 5 changes in practice participants most frequently intended to make were, in order of importance, to assess patients' values, to ask about patients' preferred role in decision making, to screen for decisional conflict, to assess support or undue pressure on patients, and to increase patients' involvement in decision making. CONCLUSION: The ODSF process and related tools have the potential to broaden family physicians' views on supporting patients facing difficult decisions.