A framework for residents' pursuit of excellence based upon non-cognitive and cognitive attributes

PURPOSE

Excellence, although variably conceptualized, is commonly used in medicine and the resident excellence literature is limited. Both cognitive attributes (CAs) and non-cognitive attributes (NCAs) are essential for academic and clinical performance; however, the latter are difficult to evaluate. Undergirded by an inclusive and non-competitive approach and utilizing CAs and NCAs, we propose a criterion-referenced behavioral framework of resident excellence.

METHODS

Perceptions of multiple stakeholders (educational administrators, faculty, and residents), gathered by survey (n = 218), document analysis (n = 52), and focus group (n = 23), were analyzed. Inductive thematic analysis was followed by deductive interpretation and categorization using sensitizing concepts for excellence, NCAs, and CAs. Chi-squared tests were used to determine stakeholder perception differences.

RESULTS

All stakeholders had similar perceptions (P > .05) and 13 behavioral attributes in 6 themes undergirded by insight and conscientiousness were identified. The NCAs included: interpersonal skills (works with others, available, humble), professional (compassionate, trustworthy), commitment to profession (visible, volunteers), commitment to learn (proactively seeks feedback, creates learning opportunities), and work-life balance/integration (calm demeanor, inspirational). The CA (medical knowledge and intellect) included: applies knowledge to gain expertise and improves program's caliber.

CONCLUSION

Resident excellence is posited as a pursuit. The attributes are non-competitive, inclusionary, potentially achievable by all, and do not negatively affect freedom of choice. However, contextual and cultural differences are likely and these need validation across societal equity segments. There are implications for learners (adaptive reflection and learning goal orientation), faculty (reduced bias and whole-person feedback), and system leaders (enhancing culture and learning environments) to foster excellence.

Best Practices for Remediation in Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine Fellowship Training

Background

Remediation of struggling learners in pulmonary and critical care fellowship programs is a challenge, even for experienced medical educators.

Objective

This evidence-based narrative review provides a framework program leaders may use to address fellows having difficulty achieving competency during fellowship training.

Methods

The relevant evidence for approaches on the basis of each learner’s needs is reviewed and interpreted in the context of fellowship training in pulmonary medicine and critical care. Issues addressed include bias in fellow assessments and remediation, the impacts of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, the specific challenges of pulmonary and critical care fellowship programs, a brief review of relevant legal issues, guidance on building and leveraging program resources, and a discussion of learner outcomes.

Results

This results in a concise, evidence-based toolkit for program leaders based around four pillars: early identification, fellow assessment, collaborative intervention, and reassessment. Important concepts also include the need for documentation, clear and written communication, and fellow-directed approaches to the creation of achievable goals.

Conclusion

Evidence-based remediation helps struggling learners in pulmonary and critical care fellowship to improve their ability to meet Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones.

Optimising the delivery of remediation programmes for doctors: A realist review

CONTEXT

Medical underperformance puts patient safety at risk. Remediation, the process that seeks to 'remedy' underperformance and return a doctor to safe practice, is therefore a crucially important area of medical education. However, although remediation is used in health care systems globally, there is limited evidence for the particular models or strategies employed. The purpose of this study was to conduct a realist review to ascertain why, how, in what contexts, for whom and to what extent remediation programmes for practising doctors work to restore patient safety.

METHOD

We conducted a realist literature review consistent with RAMESES standards. We developed a programme theory of remediation by carrying out a systematic search of the literature and through regular engagement with a stakeholder group. We searched bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL, ERIC, ASSIA and DARE) and conducted purposive supplementary searches. Relevant sections of text relating to the programme theory were extracted and synthesised using a realist logic of analysis to identify context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOcs).

RESULTS

A 141 records were included. The majority of the studies were from North America (64%). 29 CMOcs were identified. Remediation programmes are effective when a doctor's insight and motivation are developed and behaviour change reinforced. Insight can be developed by providing safe spaces, using advocacy to promote trust and framing feedback sensitively. Motivation can be enhanced by involving the doctor in remediation planning, correcting causal attribution, goal setting and destigmatising remediation. Sustained change can be achieved by practising new behaviours and skills, and through guided reflection.

CONCLUSION

Remediation can work when it creates environments that trigger behaviour change mechanisms. Our evidence synthesis provides detailed recommendations on tailoring implementation and design strategies to improve remediation interventions for doctors.

Remediation programmes for practising doctors to restore patient safety: the RESTORE realist review

Background

An underperforming doctor puts patient safety at risk. Remediation is an intervention intended to address underperformance and return a doctor to safe practice. Used in health-care systems all over the world, it has clear implications for both patient safety and doctor retention in the workforce. However, there is limited evidence underpinning remediation programmes, particularly a lack of knowledge as to why and how a remedial intervention may work to change a doctor’s practice.

Objectives

To (1) conduct a realist review of the literature to ascertain why, how, in what contexts, for whom and to what extent remediation programmes for practising doctors work to restore patient safety; and (2) provide recommendations on tailoring, implementation and design strategies to improve remediation interventions for doctors.

Design

A realist review of the literature underpinned by the Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards quality and reporting standards.

Data sources

Searches of bibliographic databases were conducted in June 2018 using the following databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Education Resources Information Center, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, and Health Management Information Consortium. Grey literature searches were conducted in June 2019 using the following: Google Scholar (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA), OpenGrey, NHS England, North Grey Literature Collection, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence, Electronic Theses Online Service, Health Systems Evidence and Turning Research into Practice. Further relevant studies were identified via backward citation searching, searching the libraries of the core research team and through a stakeholder group.

Review methods

Realist review is a theory-orientated and explanatory approach to the synthesis of evidence that seeks to develop programme theories about how an intervention produces its effects. We developed a programme theory of remediation by convening a stakeholder group and undertaking a systematic search of the literature. We included all studies in the English language on the remediation of practising doctors, all study designs, all health-care settings and all outcome measures. We extracted relevant sections of text relating to the programme theory. Extracted data were then synthesised using a realist logic of analysis to identify context–mechanism–outcome configurations.

Results

A total of 141 records were included. Of the 141 studies included in the review, 64% related to North America and 14% were from the UK. The majority of studies (72%) were published between 2008 and 2018. A total of 33% of articles were commentaries, 30% were research papers, 25% were case studies and 12% were other types of articles. Among the research papers, 64% were quantitative, 19% were literature reviews, 14% were qualitative and 3% were mixed methods. A total of 40% of the articles were about junior doctors/residents, 31% were about practicing physicians, 17% were about a mixture of both (with some including medical students) and 12% were not applicable. A total of 40% of studies focused on remediating all areas of clinical practice, including medical knowledge, clinical skills and professionalism. A total of 27% of studies focused on professionalism only, 19% focused on knowledge and/or clinical skills and 14% did not specify. A total of 32% of studies described a remediation intervention, 16% outlined strategies for designing remediation programmes, 11% outlined remediation models and 41% were not applicable. Twenty-nine context–mechanism–outcome configurations were identified. Remediation programmes work when they develop doctors’ insight and motivation, and reinforce behaviour change. Strategies such as providing safe spaces, using advocacy to develop trust in the remediation process and carefully framing feedback create contexts in which psychological safety and professional dissonance lead to the development of insight. Involving the remediating doctor in remediation planning can provide a perceived sense of control in the process and this, alongside correcting causal attribution, goal-setting, destigmatising remediation and clarity of consequences, helps motivate doctors to change. Sustained change may be facilitated by practising new behaviours and skills and through guided reflection.

Limitations

Limitations were the low quality of included literature and limited number of UK-based studies.

Future work

Future work should use the recommendations to optimise the delivery of existing remediation programmes for doctors in the NHS.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018088779.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Doctors with Asperger's: the impact of a diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Asperger syndrome (AS) is part of a spectrum of disorders encompassing difficulties with social interaction that may result in specific educational needs for doctors in training. There is currently limited research on the impact of AS on working as a doctor.

METHODS

This is a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews to explore the perceptions of trainees diagnosed with AS following input from a professional support service, and the perspectives of the staff involved in their professional development.

FINDINGS

Receiving a diagnosis of AS was viewed as a double-edged sword, allowing the development of insight into lifelong difficulties, but also creating the potential for prejudice. Understanding AS traits provided an explanation for challenges in the workplace and therefore opportunities to find solutions. Understanding AS traits provided an explanation for challenges in the workplace DISCUSSION: This study explores the benefits and disadvantages of defining and labelling a specific professional support need for a group of trainees. It also reveals the need for improved awareness of AS amongst all clinical educators.