Residents' and supervisors' experiences when using a feedback-model in post-graduate medical education.

BACKGROUND: Supervisors play a key part as role models and supporting the learning during residents' post-graduate medical education, but sometimes lack sufficient pedagogic training and are challenged by high demands in today's healthcare. The aim of this study was to describe the strengths and areas for improvement identified in the supervision process by residents and supervisors in post-graduate medical education. METHODS: This study included supervisors and residents working at departments and health centres who have used a web-based questionnaire, as a part of the Evaluation and Feedback For Effective Clinical Teaching (EFFECT) model, during the period 2016-2019. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to analyse ratings and comments to describe strengths and areas for improvement in the supervision process. RESULTS: The study included 287 resident evaluations of supervisors and 78 self-evaluations by supervisors. The supervisor as a role model, being available, and, giving personal support, were the three most important strengths identified by the residents and supervisors. Residents in primary care also identified the role modelling of general practice competence as a strength, whereas residents and supervisors in hospital departments addressed supervisors as energetic and showing work was fun. The area with the need of most improvement was, Giving and receiving feedback. CONCLUSIONS: To be able to give feedback, residents and supervisors, needed to see each other in work, and the learning environment had to offer time and space to pedagogical processes, like feedback, to improve the learning environment.

Co-Producing Interprofessional Round Work: Designing Spaces for Patient Partnership.

Within wide-ranging quality improvement agendas, patient involvement in health care is widely accepted as crucial. Ward rounds that include patients' active participation are growing as an approach to involve patients, ensure safety, and improve quality. An emerging approach to studying quality improvement is to focus on "clinical microsystems," where patients, professionals, and information systems interact. This provides an opportunity to study ward rounds more deeply. A new model of conducting ward rounds implemented through quality improvement work was studied, using the theory of practice architectures as an analytical tool. Practice architecture focuses on the cultural-discursive, social-political, and material-economic conditions that shape what people do in their work. Practice architecture is a sociomaterial theoretical perspective that has the potential to change how we understand relationships between practice, learning, and change. In this study, we examine how changes in practices are accomplished. The results show that practice architecture formed co-productive learning rounds, a possible model integrating quality improvement in daily work. This emerged in the interplay between patients through their "double participation" (as people and as information on screens), and groups of professionals in a ward round room. However, social interplay had to be renegotiated in order to accomplish the goals of all ward rounds.

Exemplary Care and Learning Sites: A Model for Achieving Continual Improvement in Care and Learning in the Clinical Setting.

PROBLEM: Current models of health care quality improvement do not explicitly describe the role of health professions education. The authors propose the Exemplary Care and Learning Site (ECLS) model as an approach to achieving continual improvement in care and learning in the clinical setting. APPROACH: From 2008-2012, an iterative, interactive process was used to develop the ECLS model and its core elements--patients and families informing process changes; trainees engaging both in care and the improvement of care; leaders knowing, valuing, and practicing improvement; data transforming into useful information; and health professionals competently engaging both in care improvement and teaching about care improvement. In 2012-2013, a three-part feasibility test of the model, including a site self-assessment, an independent review of each site's ratings, and implementation case stories, was conducted at six clinical teaching sites (in the United States and Sweden). OUTCOMES: Site leaders reported the ECLS model provided a systematic approach toward improving patient (and population) outcomes, system performance, and professional development. Most sites found it challenging to incorporate the patients and families element. The trainee element was strong at four sites. The leadership and data elements were self-assessed as the most fully developed. The health professionals element exhibited the greatest variability across sites. NEXT STEPS: The next test of the model should be prospective, linked to clinical and educational outcomes, to evaluate whether it helps care delivery teams, educators, and patients and families take action to achieve better patient (and population) outcomes, system performance, and professional development.

Pedagogical processes in healthcare: an exploratory study of pedagogic work with patients and next of kin.

BACKGROUND: Care and education have much in common, and work in the healthcare sector is closely associated with learning and teaching. It is felt that many in the healthcare and medical services are not aware of their pedagogic skills and how they can be developed. FRAME OF REFERENCE: Belonging to a community of practice means that you share perspectives, methods and language. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to describe the pedagogical discourse by identifying pedagogical processes and studying the staff's awareness of such processes or situations in which a pedagogical approach would be useful in their work with patients and next of kin. METHOD: A qualitative study based on individual and group interviews. The analysis is directed by grounded theory. RESULTS: The pedagogical processes varied in length and quality. Most were unplanned and were usually embedded in treatment. The pedagogical process is linear (planning, goal setting, teaching and evaluating) in an educational setting but we found that the beginning and end can be unclear and the goals can be vague or non-existent. The pedagogical process is best described using the concepts Read, Guide and Provide learning support. DISCUSSION: The pedagogical discourse in healthcare is almost silent. Data indicate that at the collective level there is very little support for professional development of pedagogical ability. Tacit knowledge may therefore remain silent even though it may be possible to formulate and describe it. CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong need to focus on the pedagogical parts of the work and to encourage and support the development of professional pedagogical knowledge.