RESUMEN

Purpose: Physicians have a professional responsibility to engage in lifelong learning. Some of this lifelong learning is required to maintain licensure and certification. Yet, this conceptualization captures only a small portion of the content areas and learning processes that physicians need to engage with to ensure quality patient care. Additionally, purposes beyond regulatory requirements and professional obligations likely drive physicians lifelong learning, though these purposes have not been explored. Given the centrality of lifelong learning to quality patient care, our study explores how physicians conceptualize and engage in lifelong learning. Method: We conducted a qualitative interview study using an interpretivist approach. In 2019, we recruited 34 academic physicians from one institution. We analyzed our data to identify themes related to conceptualization of purposes, content areas, and processes of lifelong learning and actual lifelong learning practices. Results: We interpreted participants' descriptions and examples of lifelong learning as serving three purposes: maintaining competence, supporting personal growth and fulfillment, and engaging in professional stewardship. Much of participants' discussion of lifelong learning centered around keeping up to date with medical knowledge and clinical/procedural skills, though some also mentioned efforts to improve communication, leadership, and teamwork. Participants engaged in lifelong learning through contextual, social, and individual processes. Discussion: Academic physicians engage in lifelong learning for reasons beyond maintaining competence. Medical knowledge and clinical/procedural skills receive most attention, though other areas are recognized as important. Our findings highlight opportunities for a broader, more comprehensive approach to lifelong learning that spans all areas of medical practice.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Studies of workplace learning largely focus on how individuals (clinicians and trainees) learn in the clinical workplace. By focusing on individuals, these studies miss opportunities to explore the co-constructive nature of learning that may result in clinician-educators and trainees learning alongside each other (co-learning). The purpose of this study was to explore whether and how co-learning occurs in the workplace and what value co-learning holds. METHOD: Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, the authors interviewed 34 faculty clinician-educators from 10 specialties at one academic institution to explore whether and how co-learning occurred in their practice and how faculty perceived its value for faculty and for trainees. Interviews were conducted and recorded June to December 2019. Through iterative analysis, the authors refined a conceptual model of co-learning. RESULTS: In a 3-part model of co-learning derived from faculty interviews, faculty and trainees jointly identify learning opportunities during work-related activities and choose learning strategies for learning that lead to interpretation and construction of meaning; these activities produce learning outcomes, such as understanding or insight. The model also accounts for asymmetry in experience and position between faculty and trainees. All faculty participants valued co-learning and elucidated barriers and facilitators to using it in the workplace. How faculty managed asymmetries shaped the nature of the co-learning. When faculty worked to lessen asymmetry between teacher and trainee, co-learning was often collaborative. CONCLUSIONS: The model of co-learning makes explicit the concept of asymmetry in workplace learning and aids consideration of how related dynamics affect the nature of learning. Faculty must be intentional in managing asymmetries to fully leverage learning opportunities afforded by the workplace.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Workplace-based assessments (WBAs) are used in multiple surgical specialties to facilitate feedback to residents as a form of formative assessment. The validity evidence to support this purpose is limited and has yet to include investigations of how users interpret the assessment and make rating decisions (response processes). This study aimed to explore the validity evidence based on response processes for a WBA in surgery. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews explored the reasonings and strategies used when answering questions in a surgical WBA, the System for Improving and Measuring Procedural Learning (SIMPL). Interview questions probed the interpretation of the three assessment questions and their respective answer categories (level of autonomy, operative performance, case complexity). Researchers analyzed transcripts using directed qualitative content analysis to generate themes. SETTING: Single tertiary academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Eight residents and 13 faculty within the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery participating in a 6-month pilot of SIMPL. RESULTS: We identified four overarching themes that that characterized faculty and resident response processes while completing SIMPL: (1) Faculty and resident users had similar content-level interpretations of the questions and corresponding answer choices; (2) Users employed a variety of cognitive, behavioral, and emotional processes to make rating decisions; (3) Contextual factors influenced ratings; and (4) Tensions during interpretation contributed to rating uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Response processes are a key source of evidence to support the validity for the formative use of WBAs. Evaluating response process evidence should go beyond basic content-level analysis as contextual factors and tensions that arise during interpretation also play a large role in rating decisions. Additional work and a continued critical lens are needed to ensure that WBAs can truly meet the needs for formative assessment.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Planning and coordination among health-care professionals decrease readmission rates, yet workers have few opportunities to learn interprofessionally to improve transitions of care. An interprofessional readmission review curriculum engaged medical residents, pharmacy residents, nurse practitioner students, early-career nurses, and social work students in a critical analysis of readmissions. Learners (N = 98) participated in a 2 h, collaborative learning session to review health records from a patient readmitted within 30 days of discharge and determine plausible root causes for readmissions. A 5-item post-session survey completed by 83 (85%) evaluated knowledge and perceived competencies in transitions of care before and after participation. Significant improvements (p < .001) occurred in ratings for all five items. Two open-ended questions captured learners' perceptions of understanding and appreciating the roles of other disciplines in the discharge process and importance of interprofessional communication. Several themes emerged including understanding gaps in the discharge process, improving interprofessional collaboration and communication, and paying more attention to discharge documentation. This innovative program helped build essential skills to ensure safe discharges by introducing learners to interprofessional perspectives in analyzing root causes for readmissions, strategies to improve discharge planning, and the value of team-based care.

Asunto(s)