Not in the file: How competency committees work with undocumented contributions.

INTRODUCTION: Competence committees (CCs) centre their work around documentation of trainees' performance; undocumented contributions (i.e. informal, unrecorded material like personal judgements, experiential anecdotes and contextual information) evoke suspicion even though they may play a role in decision making. This qualitative multiple case study incorporates insights from a social practice perspective on writing to examine the use of undocumented contributions by the CCs of two large post-graduate training programmes, one in a more procedural (MP) speciality and the other in a less procedural (LP) one. METHODS: Data were collected via observations of meetings and semi-structured interviews with CC members. In the analysis, conversations were organised into triptychs of lead-up, undocumented contribution(s), and follow-up. We then created thick descriptions around the undocumented contributions, drawing on conversational context and interview data to assign possible motivations and significance. RESULTS: We found no instances in which undocumented contributions superseded the contents of a trainee's file or stood in for missing documentation. The number of undocumented contributions varied between the MP CC (six instances over two meetings) and the LP CC (22 instances over three meetings). MP CC discussions emphasised Entrustable Professional Activity (EPA) observations, whereas LP CC members paid more attention to narrative data. The divergent orientations of the CCs-adding an 'advis[ing]/guid[ing]' role versus focusing simply on evaluation-offers the most compelling explanation. In lead-ups, undocumented contributions were prompted by missing and flawed documentation, conflicting evidence and documentation at odds with members' perceptions. Recognising other 'red flags' in documentation often required professional experience. In follow-ups, purposes served by undocumented contributions varied with context and were difficult to generalise; we, therefore, provide deeper analysis of two vignettes to illustrate. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest undocumented contributions often serve best efforts to ground decisions in documentation. We would encourage CC practices and policies be rooted in more nuanced approaches to documentation.

Presenting cases in front of patients: implications for a key medical education genre.

Case presentations have been researched as both an important form of intra/inter-professional communication, where a patient's clinical information is shared among health professionals involved in their care, and an equally key discursive tool in education, where learners independently assess a patient and present the case to their preceptor and/or care team. But what happens to the case presentation, a genre that governs physician (and learner) talk about patients, when it is used in patients' presence? While they were commonly used at the bedside in the past, case presentations today are more commonly performed in hallways or conference rooms, out of patient earshot. This paper draws on interview data from a study involving patient-present case presentations in a medical education setting. Our analysis asks what participants' metageneric comments about the encounter can teach us about the genre, about patient involvement in medical education, and about linguistic adaptations to the genre that the profession might make to support patient involvement.

Patient-present teaching in the clinic: Effect on agency and professional behaviour.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Although much has been written about the medical learning environment, the patient, who is the focus of care, is rarely the focus in this literature. The purpose of this study was to explore the role of the patient as an active participant with agency in the medical learning environment from the standpoint of the learner, the attending physician, and most importantly, the patient. We hoped to gain insights into the mechanisms that can reinforce professional values such as patient-centred and respectful behaviours in a patient-present learning environment. METHODS: We conducted this study in an ambulatory internal medicine clinic using 'patient-present' clinic visits. All case presentations occurred in examination rooms with the patient. We invited participants (attending physicians, undergraduate and postgraduate learners, patients and family members) to participate in semistructured interviews after each clinic visit to explore the impact of the patient-present learning environment. We recruited 34 participants in the study; 10 attending physicians, 12 learners, 10 patients and 2 family members. We analysed the data deductively using a conceptual framework of agency. SUMMARY/RESULTS: We identified three major insights: (1) Patients felt engaged and valued opportunities to be heard; (2) Attending physicians and learners reported a more respectful learning environment and a positive though challenging teaching and learning experience; and (3) A hidden curriculum emerged in a performance-based view of professional behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-present teaching engaged patients and enhanced their agency by recasting the patient as the central focus within the healthcare encounter. We identified a tension between performing and learning. This study adds new insights to the concept of patient centredness and professionalism from the perspectives of all participants in the medical teaching and learning environment.

"Languaging" tacit judgment in formal postgraduate assessment: the documentation of ad hoc and summative entrustment decisions.

While subjective judgment is recognized by the health professions education literature as important to assessment, it remains difficult to carve out a formally recognized role in assessment practices for personal experiences, gestalts, and gut feelings. Assessment tends to rely on documentary artefacts-like the forms, standards, and policies brought in under competency-based medical education, for example-to support accountability and fairness. But judgment is often tacit in nature and can be more challenging to surface in explicit (and particularly written) form. What is needed is a nuanced approach to the incorporation of judgment in assessment such that it is neither in danger of being suppressed by an overly rigorous insistence on documentation nor uncritically sanctioned by the defense that it resides in a black box and that we must simply trust the expertise of assessors. The concept of entrustment represents an attempt to effect such a balance within current competency frameworks by surfacing judgments about the degree of supervision learners need to care safely for patients. While there is relatively little published data about its implementation as yet, one readily manifest variation in the uptake of entrustment relates to the distinction between ad hoc and summative forms. The ways in which these forms are languaged, together with their intended purposes and guidelines for their use, point to directions for more focused empirical inquiry that can inform current and future uptake of entrustment in competency-based medical education and the responsible and meaningful inclusion of judgment in assessment more generally.

HPE as a Field: Implications for the Production of Compelling Knowledge.

ISSUE: Research in education, including health professions education, has long struggled with the competing concerns of academic and practice-based stakeholders. Inspired partially by the work of Stokes and other theorists in science and technology studies, we propose that discussions about compelling research in health professions education might be usefully advanced by considering what it would mean if the community framed itself as a knowledge-producing field instead of aligning itself with either disciplinary or practical interests. EVIDENCE: Efforts to foreground disciplinary or practical interests in education research have been unproductive, leading to the privileging of one group's expertise at the expense of the other. Currently proposed principles and practices for responding to the divergence between these interests, such as knowledge translation or practitioner inquiry, have yielded comparatively little in the way of mutual satisfaction. IMPLICATIONS: As a field, health professions education research would not privilege either disciplinary or practical interests, nor would it attempt any sort of definitive blueprint for resolution to the tension. Rather it would regard these interests as inherently interconnected and, therefore, always in tension to varying degrees. The challenge for a field is not to resolve that tension but to harness it in productive ways through collaboration, negotiation, and compromise, through ever-shifting engagements that will not necessarily be comfortable but will nonetheless foster knowledge that resonates with all parts of the community.