Learning for doctor-to-doctor collaboration: a qualitative study exploring the experiences of residents and supervisors with intraprofessional workplace learning in complex tertiary care.

BACKGROUND: To deliver high-quality care for individuals with complex medical conditions, residents need to be trained across the boundaries of their specialties. This study aimed to explore learning activities and influencing factors in intraprofessional workplace learning by residents in complex tertiary care. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted in a tertiary care children's hospital. In September - December 2017, fourteen individual and two focus group interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of residents and supervisors of various specialties. Transcribed interviews were thematically analyzed to describe learning activities and influencing factors that play a role in intraprofessional workplace learning in complex tertiary care settings during residency training. RESULTS: Respondents described numerous activities that they considered opportunities for intraprofessional learning, both directly and not directly related to patient care. However, deliberate attention to intraprofessional learning often seemed to be lacking in clinical practice. Influencing factors on a system (macro), organization (meso) and personal and interpersonal level (micro) level were identified. Factors on the macro and meso level mainly determined whether intraprofessional learning opportunities arose, while micro level factors mainly influenced whether opportunities were seized. CONCLUSIONS: There are ample opportunities for intraprofessional workplace learning in complex tertiary care for residents. Residents may benefit more from intraprofessional learning opportunities if these are made more intentional and deliberate. Influencing factors at the macro, meso and micro level provide targets for interventions aimed at enhancing intraprofessional workplace learning in postgraduate medical training.

The effectiveness of transabdominal cerclage placement via laparoscopy or laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Failure or technical impossibility to place a prophylactic transvaginal cerclage in women with cervical insufficiency justifies the need for an abdominal cerclage. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we studied the obstetrical and surgical outcomes of laparoscopic and open laparotomy abdominal cerclage approaches performed before (interval) or during pregnancy. DATA SOURCES: We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies on laparoscopic and open laparotomy abdominal cerclage placement in February 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All studies on laparoscopic or open laparotomy placement of an abdominal cerclage with at least 2 patients that reported on our primary outcomes were included. METHODS: All included studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias with an adjusted Quality in Prognosis Study tool. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for the primary outcomes, namely fetal survival and gestational age at delivery. RESULTS: Our search yielded 83 studies with a total of 3398 patients; 1869 of those underwent laparoscopic cerclage placement and 1529 underwent open laparotomy placements. No studies directly compared the 2 cerclage approaches. The survival (overall, 91.2%) and gestational age at delivery (overall, 36.6 weeks) were not statistically different between the approaches. For the procedure during pregnancy, the laparoscopic group showed significantly less blood loss >400 mL (0% vs 3%), a slightly lower procedure-related fetal loss (0% vs 1%), a shorter hospital stay but a longer operation duration than the open laparotomy group. For the interval cerclages, the laparoscopic group showed significantly fewer wound infections (0% vs 3%) and a shorter hospital stay than the open laparotomy group, but showed comparable offspring preterm birth and survival rates. CONCLUSION: Based on indirect comparisons, the laparoscopic and open laparotomy abdominal cerclage placements at interval or during pregnancy produced similar outcomes in terms of survival and gestational age at delivery. There are some small differences in perioperative care, surgical complications, interventions, and complications during pregnancy. This implies that both methods of abdominal cerclage placement have high success rates and thus we cannot conclude that one of the methods is superior for the placement of an abdominal cerclage.