Making the Most of Continuing Medical Education: Evidence of Transformative Learning During a Course in Evidence-Based Medicine and Decision Making

INTRODUCTION

Continuing medical information courses have been criticized for not promoting behavior change among their participants. For behavior change to occur, participants often need to consciously reject previous ideas and transform their way of thinking. Transformational learning is a process that cultivates deep emotional responses and can lead to cognitive and behavioral change in learners, potentially facilitating rich learning experiences and expediting knowledge translation. We explored participants' experiences at a 2-day conference designed to support transformative learning as they encounter new concepts within Information Mastery, which challenge their previous frameworks around the topic of medical decision making. Using the lens of transformative learning theory, we asked: how does Information Mastery qualitatively promote perspective transformation and hence behavior change?

METHODS

We used a hermeneutic phenomenologic approach to capture the lived experience of 12 current and nine previous attendees of the "Information Mastery" course through individual interviews, focus groups, and observation. Data were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Both prevoius and current conference attendees described how the delivery of new concepts about medical decision making evoked strong emotional responses, facilitated personal transformation, and propelled expedited behavior change around epistemological, moral, and information management themes, resulting in a newfound sense of self-efficacy, confidence, and ownership in their ability to make medical decisions.

DISCUSSION

When the topic area holds the potential to foster a qualitative reframing of learners' guiding paradigms and worldviews, attention should be paid to supporting learners' personalized meaning-making process through transformative learning opportunities to promote translation into practice.

Antipsychotic augmentation for major depressive disorder: A review of clinical practice guidelines

Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) are seen as the gold standard of evidence-based care. Because of their influence, these guidelines can have profound legal and economic effects. Despite their proliferation and influence, the trustworthiness and quality of guidelines have been seriously questioned and they have been implicated as drivers of overtreatment. In the U.S, augmentation with second generation antipsychotics (SGAs) is becoming an increasingly common strategy for treating major depressive disorder (MDD) when initial antidepressant treatment does not result in remission of symptoms. However, there is debate about the evidence for augmentation and whether this strategy is a form of overtreatment. We conducted a systematic search to identify treatment guidelines for MDD. Fourteen international guidelines met inclusion criteria and we reviewed them to determine: 1) if augmentation with SGAs was recommended for patients who did not respond to antidepressant medication; 2) what evidence was cited for the recommendation for or against augmentation; 3) the extent to which the guidelines addressed risk/benefit concerns when making their recommendations. There was significant variation among the CPGs regarding the recommendation to augment with antipsychotic medication for Major Depressive Disorder. Seven guidelines explicitly recommended augmentation with antipsychotics; 1 guideline reviewed the evidence but neither recommended for nor against; 1 guideline did not make a clear recommendation; 2 guidelines explicitly recommended against augmentation; and 3 guidelines did not address augmentation with antipsychotics as a potential treatment strategy. There was wide variation in terms of attention to risk/benefit issues and to the conditions under which augmentation should be considered. The results are discussed in terms of the implications for risk management and informed consent practices.

Developing a Clinician Friendly Tool to Identify Useful Clinical Practice Guidelines: G-TRUST

BACKGROUND

Clinicians are faced with a plethora of guidelines. To rate guidelines, they can select from a number of evaluation tools, most of which are long and difficult to apply. The goal of this project was to develop a simple, easy-to-use checklist for clinicians to use to identify trustworthy, relevant, and useful practice guidelines, the Guideline Trustworthiness, Relevance, and Utility Scoring Tool (G-TRUST).

METHODS

A modified Delphi process was used to obtain consensus of experts and guideline developers regarding a checklist of items and their relative impact on guideline quality. We conducted 4 rounds of sampling to refine wording, add and subtract items, and develop a scoring system. Multiple attribute utility analysis was used to develop a weighted utility score for each item to determine scoring.

RESULTS

Twenty-two experts in evidence-based medicine, 17 developers of high-quality guidelines, and 1 consumer representative participated. In rounds 1 and 2, items were rewritten or dropped, and 2 items were added. In round 3, weighted scores were calculated from rankings and relative weights assigned by the expert panel. In the last round, more than 75% of experts indicated 3 of the 8 checklist items to be major indicators of guideline usefulness and, using the AGREE tool as a reference standard, a scoring system was developed to identify guidelines as useful, may not be useful, and not useful.

CONCLUSION

The 8-item G-TRUST is potentially helpful as a tool for clinicians to identify useful guidelines. Further research will focus on its reliability when used by clinicians.

On the Inner Life of Physicians: Analysis of Family Medicine Residents' Written Reflections

This qualitative study introduces the broad and inclusive concept of the "inner life of physicians" and analyzes the written reflections (N = 756) of family medicine residents (N = 33) during their residency as indicative of the physicians' inner lives. Residents completed reflective entries without specific prompts. Researchers describe unsolicited emergent categorical themes indicative of a robust inner life of the physician. Nurturing physicians' inner life through reflection allows physicians to recognize, identify, and respond to daily emotional events. Reflections about the state of physicians' inner lives can formulate and express fundamental human questions that concern: (a) troubling human experiences (e.g., suffering, death, luck, destiny, and death); (b) questions that surface in practicing their profession; (c) spiritually explicit questions on their beliefs and practices. Physicians' inner lives can become a "place" where physicians look for answers and explore options for dealing with their human and professional challenges, thus enhancing the humanistic aspects of medical practice.

Cultivating the Inner Life of a Physician Through Written Reflection

All of us have an "inner life" that forms the core of who we are. It shapes and is shaped by our actions and experiences. During physician training, attention to residents' inner life requires a focus on their beliefs and emotions as well as their ethical and spiritual development, topics often considered to be outside the realm of clinical training and practice. We suggest that written reflections, as part of medical residency curriculum, can allow residents to explore their inner lives. The depth and range of residents' explorations show the value of adding brief, protected time for residents to explore their hopes, joys, struggles, and feelings, and to develop meaning from their experiences with patients.