Exploring practice and perspectives on shared decision-making about osteoporosis medicines in Fracture Liaison Services: the iFraP development qualitative study.

Interviews and focus groups with patients, FLS clinicians, and GPs identified challenges relating to clinical and shared decision-making about bone health and osteoporosis medicines. Findings will inform the development of the multicomponent iFraP intervention to address identified training needs and barriers to implementation to facilitate SDM about osteoporosis medicines. PURPOSE: The iFraP (improving uptake of Fracture Prevention treatments) study aimed to develop a multicomponent intervention, including an osteoporosis decision support tool (DST), to support shared decision-making (SDM) about osteoporosis medicines. To inform iFraP intervention development, this qualitative study explored current practice in relation to communication about bone health and osteoporosis medicines, anticipated barriers to, and facilitators of, an osteoporosis DST, and perceived training needs. METHODS: Patients attending an FLS consultation (n = 8), FLS clinicians (n = 9), and general practitioners (GPs; n = 7) were purposively sampled to participate in a focus group and/or telephone interview. Data were transcribed, inductively coded, and then mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) as a deductive framework to systematically identify possible barriers to, and facilitators of, implementing a DST. RESULTS: Inductive codes were deductively mapped to 12 TDF domains. FLS clinicians were perceived to have specialist expertise (knowledge). However, clinicians described aspects of clinical decision-making and risk communication as difficult (cognitive skills). Patients reflected on decisional uncertainty about medicines (decision processes). Discussions about current practice and the proposed DST indicated opportunities to facilitate SDM, if identified training needs are met. Potential individual and system-level barriers to implementation were identified, such as differences in FLS configuration and a move to remote consulting (environmental context and resources). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding of current practice revealed unmet training needs, indicating that using a DST in isolation would be unlikely to produce a sustained shift to SDM. Findings will shape iFraP intervention development to address unmet needs.

How do medical schools influence their students' career choices? A realist evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: The career choices of medical graduates vary widely between medical schools in the UK and elsewhere and are generally not well matched with societal needs. Research has found that experiences in medical school including formal, informal and hidden curricula are important influences. We conducted a realist evaluation of how and why these various social conditions in medical school influence career thinking. METHODS: We interviewed junior doctors at the point of applying for speciality training. We selected purposively for a range of career choices. Participants were asked to describe points during their medical training when they had considered career options and how their thinking had been influenced by their context. Interview transcripts were coded for context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations to test initial theories of how career decisions are made. RESULTS: A total of 26 junior doctors from 12 UK medical schools participated. We found 14 recurring CMO configurations in the data which explained influences on career choice occurring during medical school. DISCUSSION: Our initial theories about career decision-making were refined as follows: It involves a process of testing for fit of potential careers. This process is asymmetric with multiple experiences needed before deciding a career fits ('easing in') but sometimes only a single negative experience needed for a choice to be ruled out. Developing a preference for a speciality aligns with Person-Environment-Fit decision theories. Ruling out a potential career can however be a less thought-through process than rationality-based decision theories would suggest. Testing for fit is facilitated by longer and more authentic undergraduate placements, allocation of and successful completion of tasks, being treated as part of the team and enthusiastic role models. Informal career guidance is more influential than formal. We suggest some implications for medical school programmes.

How well do UK assistantships equip medical students for graduate practice? Think EPAs.

The goal of better medical student preparation for clinical practice drives curricular initiatives worldwide. Learning theory underpins Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) as a means of safe transition to independent practice. Regulators mandate senior assistantships to improve practice readiness. It is important to know whether meaningful EPAs occur in assistantships, and with what impact. Final year students at one UK medical school kept learning logs and audio-diaries for six one-week periods during a year-long assistantship. Further data were also obtained through interviewing participants when students and after three months as junior doctors. This was combined with data from new doctors from 17 other UK schools. Realist methods explored what worked for whom and why. 32 medical students and 70 junior doctors participated. All assistantship students reported engaging with EPAs but gaps in the types of EPAs undertaken exist, with level of entrustment and frequency of access depending on the context. Engagement is enhanced by integration into the team and shared understanding of what constitutes legitimate activities. Improving the shared understanding between student and supervisor of what constitutes important assistantship activity may result in an increase in the amount and/or quality of EPAs achieved.

Training healthcare professionals to be ready for practice in an era of social distancing: a realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Programme changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted variably on preparation for practice of healthcare professional students. Explanations for such variability need exploration. The aim of our study was to understand what clinical learning, whilst under socially distanced restrictions, worked and why (or why not). METHODS: We conducted a realist evaluation of the undergraduate healthcare programmes at one UK university in 2020-21. Initial programme theories to be tested in this study were derived from discussions with programme leads about the changes they implemented due to the pandemic. Study participants were students and teaching faculty. Online interview transcripts were coded, identifying why interventions had worked or not. This resulted in a set of 'context-mechanism-outcome' (CMO) statements about each intervention. The initial programme theories were refined as a result. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: 29 students and 22 faculty members participated. 18 CMO configurations were identified relating to clinical skills learning and 25 relating to clinical placements. Clinical skills learning was successful whether in person, remote or hybrid if it followed the steps of: demonstration-explanation-mental rehearsal-attempt with feedback. Where it didn't work there was usually a lack of observation and corrective feedback. Placements were generally highly valued despite some deficiencies in student experience. Being useful on placements was felt to be good preparation for practice. If student numbers are to expand, findings about what works in distance learning of clinical skills and the value of various modes of induction to clinical workplace activity may also be relevant post-pandemic.

How do medical students' experiences inform their opinions of general practice and its potential as a future career choice?

Recruitment of general practitioners (GPs) in the UK has been suboptimal. There is a wealth of literature exploring recruitment into general practice and opinions of general practice, set in many contexts. This paper aims to synthesise all the elements and extract mechanisms to explain what works, for whom in what circumstances, to create a comprehensive understanding and highlight potential target areas for improvement to improve understanding and fuel interest in general practice careers. A realist review of literature and contemporary data was conducted in line with RAMESES standards. Analysis and synthesis were aided by NVivo. An initial program theory was developed following discussion with expert informers. Sections of text from included literature relating to program theory were extracted and synthesised into a final program theory using a realist logic of analysis in which recurring Context-Mechanism-Outcome configurations (CMOCs) were identified. Searches identified 27 relevant documents. Twenty recurring CMOCs were extracted, explaining how student perceptions of General Practice were influenced by placement experiences, comments from hospital doctors, medical school faculty, peers, GPs, student perceptions of lifestyle and the media. The GP placement environment plays an important role in the formation of opinions about the speciality. The impact of social influence varies depending on the student's desire to belong to a reference group and their level of self-monitoring behaviour. The 'GP lifestyle' was judged to be compatible with many students' needs. This realist review provides recommendations on how curricula can adapt to provide an accurate insight into general practice.

Feasibility study of student telehealth interviews.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to medical students being taught remote clinical communication modalities (telephone and video). Junior students have not generally been included in this and have had less patient contact than previously. This study aimed to examine the feasibility from the junior student viewpoint of conducting both modalities of patient telehealth interviews. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire was used to discover Year 1 student reasons for their preferred modality after they had conducted one telephone and one video interview in pairs with a patient volunteer. Student views on the challenge and benefits of each were also sought. FINDINGS: A total of 55 (32.7% of the cohort) responded, of whom 82% preferred video consultation, 75.6% of those stating being able to see their patient/partner was a key factor. About 5% preferred telephone interview, and 13% had no preference. Telephone interviews were perceived as the more challenging (40% versus 12.7%); however, challenge did not directly link with lack of comfort. There were some technical/connectivity issues with both modalities, and the telephone call system was more complex to set up. Turn-taking was more difficult by telephone without visual cues. DISCUSSION: This is the first direct comparison study in junior medical students of real patient interviews by video or telephone. Students embraced the challenge and, although preferring video and finding telephone more challenging, valued each as an educational experience. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth interviews with patients for junior students are feasible, give needed patient exposure, practical insights into remote modalities and consolidate communication skills learnt in the classroom.

Can learning from workplace feedback be enhanced by reflective writing? A realist evaluation in UK undergraduate medical education.

Introduction: Doctors and medical students in the UK are currently required to provide evidence of learning by reflective writing on (among other things) feedback from colleagues. Although the theoretical value of reflecting-on-action is clear, research is still needed to know how to realise the potential of written reflection in medical education. This study arose out of efforts to improve medical student engagement with a reflective writing exercise. We used realist methodology to explain the disinclination of the majority to do written reflection on workplace feedback, and the benefits to the minority.Method: Realist evaluation is a suitable approach to researching complex interventions which have worked for some and not for others. Focus groups were held over a three-year period with year 3 and 4 students. Focus group transcripts were coded for context-mechanism-outcome configurations (the realist approach to analysing data) explaining students' choice not to write a reflection, to write a 'tick-box' reflection or to write for learning. A sub-set of eight students' reflections were also analysed to ascertain evidence of learning through reflection.Results and discussion: 27 students participated in 4 focus groups. Three summary theories emerged showing the importance of context. Firstly, written reflection is effortful and benefits those who invest in it for intrinsic reasons in situations when they need to think more deeply about a learning event. Secondly, following a reflective feedback discussion writing a reflection may add little because the learning has already taken place. Thirdly, external motivation tends to result in writing a 'tick-box' reflection.

Understanding and developing procedures for video-based assessment in medical education.

INTRODUCTION: Novel uses of video aim to enhance assessment in health-professionals education. Whilst these uses presume equivalence between video and live scoring, some research suggests that poorly understood variations could challenge validity. We aimed to understand examiners' and students' interaction with video whilst developing procedures to promote its optimal use. METHODS: Using design-based research we developed theory and procedures for video use in assessment, iteratively adapting conditions across simulated OSCE stations. We explored examiners' and students' perceptions using think-aloud, interviews and focus group. Data were analysed using constructivist grounded-theory methods. RESULTS: Video-based assessment produced detachment and reduced volitional control for examiners. Examiners ability to make valid video-based judgements was mediated by the interaction of station content and specifically selected filming parameters. Examiners displayed several judgemental tendencies which helped them manage videos' limitations but could also bias judgements in some circumstances. Students rarely found carefully-placed cameras intrusive and considered filming acceptable if adequately justified. DISCUSSION: Successful use of video-based assessment relies on balancing the need to ensure station-specific information adequacy; avoiding disruptive intrusion; and the degree of justification provided by video's educational purpose. Video has the potential to enhance assessment validity and students' learning when an appropriate balance is achieved.

Clinical assessors' working conceptualisations of undergraduate consultation skills: a framework analysis of how assessors make expert judgements in practice.

Undergraduate clinical assessors make expert, multifaceted judgements of consultation skills in concert with medical school OSCE grading rubrics. Assessors are not cognitive machines: their judgements are made in the light of prior experience and social interactions with students. It is important to understand assessors' working conceptualisations of consultation skills and whether they could be used to develop assessment tools for undergraduate assessment. To identify any working conceptualisations that assessors use while assessing undergraduate medical students' consultation skills and develop assessment tools based on assessors' working conceptualisations and natural language for undergraduate consultation skills. In semi-structured interviews, 12 experienced assessors from a UK medical school populated a blank assessment scale with personally meaningful descriptors while describing how they made judgements of students' consultation skills (at exit standard). A two-step iterative thematic framework analysis was performed drawing on constructionism and interactionism. Five domains were found within working conceptualisations of consultation skills: Application of knowledge; Manner with patients; Getting it done; Safety; and Overall impression. Three mechanisms of judgement about student behaviour were identified: observations, inferences and feelings. Assessment tools drawing on participants' conceptualisations and natural language were generated, including 'grade descriptors' for common conceptualisations in each domain by mechanism of judgement and matched to grading rubrics of Fail, Borderline, Pass, Very good. Utilising working conceptualisations to develop assessment tools is feasible and potentially useful. Work is needed to test impact on assessment quality.

'What do we do, doctor?' Transitions of identity and responsibility: a narrative analysis.

Transitioning from student to doctor is notoriously challenging. Newly qualified doctors feel required to make decisions before owning their new identity. It is essential to understand how responsibility relates to identity formation to improve transitions for doctors and patients. This multiphase ethnographic study explores realities of transition through anticipatory, lived and reflective stages. We utilised Labov's narrative framework (Labov in J Narrat Life Hist 7(1-4):395-415, 1997) to conduct in-depth analysis of complex relationships between changes in responsibility and development of professional identity. Our objective was to understand how these concepts interact. Newly qualified doctors acclimatise to their role requirements through participatory experience, perceived as a series of challenges, told as stories of adventure or quest. Rules of interaction within clinical teams were complex, context dependent and rarely explicit. Students, newly qualified and supervising doctors felt tensions around whether responsibility should be grasped or conferred. Perceived clinical necessity was a common determinant of responsibility rather than planned learning. Identity formation was chronologically mismatched to accepting responsibility. We provide a rich illumination of the complex relationship between responsibility and identity pre, during, and post-transition to qualified doctor: the two are inherently intertwined, each generating the other through successful actions in practice. This suggests successful transition requires a supported period of identity reconciliation during which responsibility may feel burdensome. During this, there is a fine line between too much and too little responsibility: seemingly innocuous assumptions can have a significant impact. More effort is needed to facilitate behaviours that delegate authority to the transitioning learner whilst maintaining true oversight.

Comparing the influence of 'describing findings to the examiner' or 'examining as in usual practice' on the students' performance and assessors' judgements during physical examination skills assessment.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. BACKGROUND: Within assessment of physical examination skills, two approaches are common: "Describing Findings" (students comment throughout); and examining as "Usual Practice" (students only report findings at the end). Despite numerous potential influences on both students' performances and assessors' judgements, no prior studies have investigated the influence of either approach on assessments. METHODS: Two group, randomised, crossover design. Within a 2-station simulated physical examination OSCE, we manipulated whether students "described findings" or examined as "usual practice", collecting 1/. performance scores; 2/. Students'/examiners' cognitive load ratings; ratings of the 3/. fluency and 4/. completeness of students' presentations and 5/. Students' task-finishing, comparing all 5 end-points across conditions. RESULTS: Neither students' performance scores nor examiners' cognitive load were influenced by experimental condition. Students reported higher cognitive load (7/9) when "describing findings" than "usual practice" (6/9, p=0.002), and were less likely to finish (4 vs 12, p=0.007). Presentation completeness was higher for "describing findings" (mean=2.40, (95CIs=2.05-2.74)) than "usual practice" (mean=1.92 (1.65-2.18),p=0.016), whilst fluency ratings showed a similar trend. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to "Describe Findings" or examine as "Usual Practice" does not appear neutral, potentially influencing students' efficiency, recall and (by inference) learning. Institutions should explicitly select one option based on assessment goals.

Qualitative research using realist evaluation to explain preparedness for doctors' memorable 'firsts'.

CONTEXT: Doctors must be competent from their first day of practice if patients are to be safe. Medical students and new doctors are acutely aware of this, but describe being variably prepared. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify causal chains of the contextual factors and mechanisms that lead to a trainee being capable (or not) of completing tasks for the first time. METHODS: We studied three stages of transition: anticipation; lived experience, and post hoc reflection. In the anticipation stage, medical students kept logbooks and audio diaries and were interviewed. Consenting participants were followed into their first jobs as doctors, during which they made audio diaries to capture the lived experiences of transition. Reflection was captured using interviews and focus groups with other postgraduate trainee doctors. All materials were transcribed and references to first experiences ('firsts') were analysed through the lens of realist evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 32 medical students participated. Eleven participants were followed through the transition to the role of doctor. In addition, 70 postgraduate trainee doctors from three local hospitals who were graduates of 17 UK medical schools participated in 10 focus groups. We identified three categories of firsts (outcomes): firsts that were anticipated and deliberately prepared for in medical school; firsts for which total prior preparedness is not possible as a result of the step change in responsibility between the student and doctor identities, and firsts that represented experiences of failure. Helpful interventions in preparation (context) were opportunities for rehearsal and being given responsibility as a student in the clinical team. Building self-efficacy for tasks was an important mechanism. During transition, the key contextual factor was the provision of appropriate support from colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: Transition is a step change in responsibility for which total preparedness is not achievable. This transition is experienced as a rite of passage when the newly qualified doctor first makes decisions alone. This study extends the existing literature by explaining the mechanisms involved in preparedness for firsts.

Utility of an app-based system to improve feedback following workplace-based assessment.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an app-based software system to support production and storage of assessment feedback summaries makes workplace-based assessment easier for clinical tutors and enhances the educational impact on medical students. METHODS: We monitored our workplace assessor app's usage by Year 3 to 5 medical students in 2014-15 and conducted focus groups with Year 4 medical students and interviews with clinical tutors who had used the apps. Analysis was by constant comparison using a framework based on elements of van der Vleuten's utility index. RESULTS: The app may enhance the content of feedback for students. Using a screen may be distracting if the app is used during feedback discussions.    Educational impact was reduced by students' perceptions that an easy-to-produce feedback summary is less valuable than one requiring more tutor time and effort. Tutors' typing, dictation skills and their familiarity with mobile devices varied. This influenced their willingness to use the assessment and feedback mobile app rather than the equivalent web app. Electronic feedback summaries had more real and perceived uses than anticipated both for tutors and students including perceptions that they were for the school rather than the student. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic workplace-based assessment systems can be acceptable to tutors and can make giving detailed written feedback more practical but can interrupt the social interaction required for the feedback conversation. Tutor training and flexible systems will be required to minimise unwanted consequences. The educational impact on both tutors and students of providing pre-formulated advice within the app is worth further study.

Medical students' perceptions of bedside teaching.

BACKGROUND: Bedside teaching is recognised as a valuable tool in medical education by both students and faculty members. Bedside teaching is frequently delivered by consultants; however, junior doctors are increasingly engaging in this form of clinical teaching, and their value in this respect is becoming more widely recognised. The aim of this study was to supplement work completed by previous authors who have begun to explore students' satisfaction with bedside teaching, and their perceptions of the relationship with the clinical teachers. Specifically, we aimed to identify how students perceive bedside teaching delivered by junior doctors compared with consultants. We aimed to identify how students perceived bedside teaching delivered by junior doctors compared with consultants METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to all third-year medical students at Keele University via e-mail. Responses were submitted anonymously. RESULTS: Forty-six students responded (37.4%), 73.3 per cent of whom said that they felt more comfortable having bedside teaching delivered by junior doctors than by consultants. Consultants were perceived as more challenging by 60 per cent of respondents. Students appeared to value feedback on their performance, trust the validity of taught information, and to value the overall educational experience equally, regardless of the clinical grade of the teacher. DISCUSSION: Student preference does not equate to the value that they place on their bedside teaching. Junior doctors are perceived as being more in touch with students and the curriculum, whereas consultants are perceived as having higher expectations and as being both stricter and more knowledgeable. The clinical teacher's approachable manner and enthusiasm for teaching are more important than clinical grade, as is the ability to deliver well-structured constructive feedback.

What's in a name? A discussion of what medical students and junior doctors call their senior colleagues, and why it matters.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. How should a medical student address their clinical tutor? Sociolinguistic ideas such as politeness theory tell us that the choice of formal or informal terms of address is determined by the positions of those communicating on two axes; relative status and degree of intimacy. This positioning is influenced by the interaction of personal characteristics of the individuals involved, but there are cross-cultural variations to these rules which are also changing as the world changes. The purpose of the communication will also influence terms of address. There is evidence that reducing social distance within teams improves team-working and that the perception of hierarchy prevents medical students asking for help. Such evidence forces us to take an honest look at how we train our junior colleagues to address us. Students may discover that the etiquette of the medical school classroom differs from that of the clinical placement and find themselves uncertain about how to address their colleagues appropriately. We suggest that it may be helpful in such a quandary to 'mind the gap' rather than ignoring it or trying to close it by imposing a blanket rule on it. We conclude by calling for sociological study with healthcare professionals and their students to discover whether formal or informal forms of address help or hinder aspects of learning and clinical teamwork.

Does formal workplace based assessment add value to informal feedback?

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Feedback is a key component of learning but effective feedback is a complex process with many aspects. One aspect may be a written summary which is passed to the learner but this may not be valued by learners. We examined the role of written feedback in the feedback process to determine whether it does more than provide a simple summary of the interaction. We conducted a secondary analysis of data gathered for a study of formative workplace based assessment. Interview data from 24 interviews with students and written summaries of workplace based assessments for 23 of them were reanalysed by two researchers who were already immersed in the data and examined all references to verbal, informal feedback and written, formal feedback or the assessment tool used. We found that students valued the verbal feedback discussion highly and that they often considered the written summaries superfluous. We also found that the act of preparing written feedback augmented the feedback discussion and tutors had adopted the language of the formal instrument in the verbal feedback and free text written feedback. What this study adds to existing research is evidence that there may be a secondary faculty development effect of requiring the preparation of written feedback which has served to enhance the educational content of feedback. Although this is not proof of causality (the requirement to provide written feedback alone producing the positive effects), we consider that the likelihood is sufficiently strong to continue the practice.

Guidelines: the do's, don'ts and don't knows of feedback for clinical education.

INTRODUCTION: The guidelines offered in this paper aim to amalgamate the literature on formative feedback into practical Do's, Don'ts and Don't Knows for individual clinical supervisors and for the institutions that support clinical learning. METHODS: The authors built consensus by an iterative process. Do's and Don'ts were proposed based on authors' individual teaching experience and awareness of the literature, and the amalgamated set of guidelines were then refined by all authors and the evidence was summarized for each guideline. Don't Knows were identified as being important questions to this international group of educators which if answered would change practice. The criteria for inclusion of evidence for these guidelines were not those of a systematic review, so indicators of strength of these recommendations were developed which combine the evidence with the authors' consensus. RESULTS: A set of 32 Do and Don't guidelines with the important Don't Knows was compiled along with a summary of the evidence for each. These are divided into guidelines for the individual clinical supervisor giving feedback to their trainee (recommendations about both the process and the content of feedback) and guidelines for the learning culture (what elements of learning culture support the exchange of meaningful feedback, and what elements constrain it?) CONCLUSION: Feedback is not easy to get right, but it is essential to learning in medicine, and there is a wealth of evidence supporting the Do's and warning against the Don'ts. Further research into the critical Don't Knows of feedback is required. A new definition is offered: Helpful feedback is a supportive conversation that clarifies the trainee's awareness of their developing competencies, enhances their self-efficacy for making progress, challenges them to set objectives for improvement, and facilitates their development of strategies to enable that improvement to occur.

Grades in formative workplace-based assessment: a study of what works for whom and why.

CONTEXT: Grades are commonly used in formative workplace-based assessment (WBA) in medical education and training, but may draw attention away from feedback about the task. A dilemma arises because the self-regulatory focus of a trainee must include self-awareness relative to agreed standards, which implies grading. OBJECTIVES: In this study we aimed to understand the meaning which medical students construct from WBA feedback with and without grades, and what influences this. METHODS: Year 3 students were invited to take part in a randomised crossover study in which each student served as his or her own control. Each student undertook one WBA with and one without grades, and then chose whether or not to be given grades in a third WBA. These preferences were explored in semi-structured interviews. A realist approach to analysis was used to gain understanding of student preferences and the impact of feedback with and without grades. RESULTS: Of 83 students who were given feedback with and without grades, 65 (78%) then chose to have feedback with grades and 18 (22%) without grades in their third WBA. A total of 24 students were interviewed. Students described how grades locate their performance and calibrate their self-assessment. For some, low grades focused attention and effort. Satisfactory and high grades enhanced self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Grades are concrete, powerful and blunt, can be harmful and need to be explained to help students create helpful meaning from them. Low grades risk reducing self-efficacy in some and may encourage others to focus on proving their ability rather than on improvement. A metaphor of the semi-permeable membrane is introduced to elucidate how students reduced potential negative effects and enhanced the positive effects of feedback with grades by selective filtering and pumping. This study illuminates the complexity of the processing of feedback by its recipients, and informs the use of grading in the provision of more effective, tailored feedback.