Dataset Information

How do trainee doctors learn about research? Content analysis of Australian specialist colleges' intended research curricula.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Patients do better in research-intense environments. The importance of research is reflected in the accreditation requirements of Australian clinical specialist colleges. The nature of college-mandated research training has not been systematically explored. We examined the intended research curricula of Australian trainee doctors described by specialist colleges, their constructive alignment and the nature of scholarly project requirements. DESIGN:We undertook content analysis of publicly available documents to characterise college research training curricula. SETTING:We reviewed all publicly accessible information from the websites of Australian specialist colleges and their subspecialty divisions. We retrieved curricula, handbooks and assessment-related documents. PARTICIPANTS:Fifty-eight Australian specialist colleges and their subspecialty divisions. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Two reviewers extracted and coded research-related activities as learning outcomes, activities or assessments, by research stage (using, participating in or leading research) and competency based on Bloom's taxonomy (remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating, creating). We coded learning and assessment activities by type (eg, formal research training, publication) and whether it was linked to a scholarly project. Requirements related to project supervisors' research experience were noted. RESULTS:Fifty-five of 58 Australian college subspecialty divisions had a scholarly project requirement. Only 11 required formal research training; two required an experienced research supervisor. Colleges emphasised a role for trainees in leading research in their learning outcomes and assessments, but not learning activities. Less emphasis was placed on using research, and almost no emphasis on participation. Most learning activities and assessments mapped to the 'creating' domain of Bloom's taxonomy, whereas most learning outcomes mapped to the 'evaluating' domain. Overall, most research learning and assessment activities were related to leading a scholarly project. CONCLUSIONS:Australian specialist college research curricula appear to emphasise a role for trainees in leading research and producing research deliverables, but do not mandate formal research training and supervision by experienced researchers.

SUBMITTER: Stehlik P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7073806 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How do trainee doctors learn about research? Content analysis of Australian specialist colleges' intended research curricula.

Stehlik Paulina P Noble Christy C Brandenburg Caitlin C Fawzy Peter P Narouz Isaac I Henry David D Glasziou Paul P

BMJ open 20200315 3

<h4>Objectives</h4>Patients do better in research-intense environments. The importance of research is reflected in the accreditation requirements of Australian clinical specialist colleges. The nature of college-mandated research training has not been systematically explored. We examined the intended research curricula of Australian trainee doctors described by specialist colleges, their constructive alignment and the nature of scholarly project requirements.<h4>Design</h4>We undertook content a ...[more]

PMID: 32179561

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe importance of patient-centred care (PCC) has been increasingly recognised. However, there is limited work exploring what doctors actually understand by PCC, and how they perceive they acquire PCC skills in the workplace. The objectives of our study were to explore (1) what UK doctors, in specialist training, perceive to be the essential components of PCC, (2) if/how they acquire these skills, (3) any facilitators/barriers for engaging in PCC and (4) views on their PCC training.DesignQualitative study using in-depth individual semi-structured interviews with UK specialist trainees. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed.Setting and participantsThirty-one specialist trainee doctors, with at least 4 years postgraduate experience, were interviewed. Participants worked in various medical specialities within the Medical Directorate of an acute hospital in the East Midlands of England.ResultsInterview data were transcribed verbatim and categorised into three main themes. The first theme was 'Understanding PCC' where the doctors gave varied perspectives on what they understood by PCC. Although many were able to highlight key components of PCC, there were also some accounts which demonstrated a lack of understanding. The second theme was 'Learning PCC skills: A work in progress'. Learning to be patient-centred was perceived to be an ongoing process. Within this, trainee doctors reported 'on-the-job' learning as the main means of acquiring PCC skills, but they also saw a place for formal training (eg, educational sessions focussing on PCC, role play). 'Delivering PCC: Beyond the physician' referred to the many influences the doctors reported in learning and delivering PCC including patients, the organisation and colleagues. Observing consultants taking a patient-centred approach was cited as an important learning tool.ConclusionsOur findings may assist clinical educators in understanding how trainee doctors perceive PCC, and the factors that influence their learning, thereby helping them shape PCC skills training.

Project description:BackgroundThe amount of information needed by doctors has exploded. The nature of knowledge (explicit and tacit) and processes of knowledge acquisition and participation are complex. Aiming to assist workplace learning, Wales Deanery funded "iDoc", a project offering trainee doctors a Smartphone library of medical textbooks.MethodsData on trainee doctors' (Foundation Year 2) workplace information seeking practice was collected by questionnaire in 2011 (n = 260). iDoc baseline questionnaires (n = 193) collected data on Smartphone usage alongside other workplace information sources. Case reports (n = 117) detail specific instances of Smartphone use.ResultsMost frequently (daily) used information sources in the workplace: senior medical staff (80% F2 survey; 79% iDoc baseline); peers (70%; 58%); and other medical/nursing team staff (53% both datasets). Smartphones were used more frequently by males (p < 0.01). Foundation Year 1 (newly qualified) was judged the most useful time to have a Smartphone library because of increased responsibility and lack of knowledge/experience.Preferred information source varied by question type: hard copy texts for information-based questions; varied resources for skills queries; and seniors for more complex problems. Case reports showed mobile technology used for simple (information-based), complex (problem-based) clinical questions and clinical procedures (skills-based scenarios). From thematic analysis, the Smartphone library assisted: teaching and learning from observation; transition from medical student to new doctor; trainee doctors' discussions with seniors; independent practice; patient care; and this 'just-in-time' access to reliable information supported confident and efficient decision-making.ConclusionA variety of information sources are used regularly in the workplace. Colleagues are used daily but seniors are not always available. During transitions, constant access to the electronic library was valued. It helped prepare trainee doctors for discussions with their seniors, assisting the interchange between explicit and tacit knowledge.By supporting accurate prescribing and treatment planning, the electronic library contributed to enhanced patient care. Trainees were more rapidly able to medicate patients to reduce pain and more quickly call for specific assessments. However, clinical decision-making often requires dialogue: what Smartphone technology can do is augment, not replace, discussion with their colleagues in the community of practice.

Project description:BackgroundThe Australian Medical Council, which accredits Australian medical schools, recommends medical leadership graduate outcomes be taught, assessed and accredited. In Australia and New Zealand (Australasia) there is a significant research gap and no national consensus on how to educate, assess, and evaluate leadership skills in medical professional entry degree/programs. This study aims to investigate the current curricula, assessment and evaluation of medical leadership in Australasian medical degrees, with particular focus on the roles and responsibilities of medical leadership teachers, frameworks used and competencies taught, methods of delivery, and barriers to teaching leadership.MethodsA self-administered cross-sectional survey was distributed to senior academics and/or heads or Deans of Australasian medical schools. Data for closed questions and ordinal data of each Likert scale response were described via frequency analysis. Content analysis was undertaken on free text responses and coded manually.ResultsSixteen of the 22 eligible (73%) medical degrees completed the full survey and 100% of those indicate that leadership is taught in their degree. In most degrees (11, 69%) leadership is taught as a common theme integrated throughout the curricula across several subjects. There is a variety of leadership competencies taught, with strengths being communication (100%), evidence based practice (100%), critical reflective practice (94%), self-management (81%), ethical decision making (81%), critical thinking and decision making (81%). Major gaps in teaching were financial management (20%), strategic planning (31%) and workforce planning (31%). The teaching methods used to deliver medical leadership within the curricula are diverse, with many degrees providing opportunities for leadership teaching for students outside the curricula. Most degrees (10, 59%) assess the leadership education, with one-third (6, 35%) evaluating it.ConclusionsMedical leadership competencies are taught in most degrees, but key leadership competencies are not being taught and there appears to be no continuous quality improvement process for leadership education. There is much more we can do as medical educators, academics and leaders to shape professional development of academics to teach medical leadership, and to agree on required leadership skills set for our students so they can proactively shape the future of the health care system.

Project description:BackgroundNeurophobia is the fear of neurosciences held by medical students and doctors. The present study aims to identify whether Neurology is considered a difficult subject by medical students and non-specialist doctors from Sri Lanka and evaluate reasons for such perceived difficulties.MethodsThe study was conducted from May-June 2008. One hundred non-specialist doctors from the Colombo South Teaching Hospital and 150 medical students from the University of Sri Jayewardenepura were invited for the study. Data were collected by a pre-tested expert-validated self-administered questionnaire, designed to assess the degree of perceived difficulty, confidence, interest and knowledge of Neurology as compared to other subjects. It also evaluated reasons and probable strategies to overcome the perceived difficulties and/or lack of interests.ResultsAll non-specialist doctors and 148 medical students responded to the questionnaire (response rate-99.2%). The most favourite subject among medical students and non-specialist doctors were Cardiology and Endocrinology respectively, while Neurology was ranked third. In all participants the current level of interest was most for Cardiology (3.52±1.36), while Neurology was the least interesting specialty for majority of medical students (18.5%) and non-specialist doctors (25.0%). The current level of knowledge among medical students was most for Cardiology (3.12±0.86), while Neurology (2.53±0.96) was ranked fifth. The most difficult specialty for majority of medical students (50.0%) and non-specialist doctors (41.7%) was Neurology. All the participants were least confident when dealing with patients with headache (2.20±0.81), numbness of feet (2.07±0.79) and dizziness (2.07±0.78) when compared to dealing with other non-neurological complaints. The commonest reasons 'why Neurology was felt to be a difficult subject' were; the need to know basic neuro-anatomy and having a complex clinical examination. Participants' felt that clinical/hospital based teaching (3.49±0.65), case discussions (3.45±0.68) and teaching aids (3.10±0.89) would be the most important teaching strategies to improve their competency in Neurology.ConclusionNeurology is considered a difficult subject by undergraduates and non-specialist doctors of Sri Lanka. The main reason for the perceived difficulty was the lack of understanding of basic sciences and deficiencies in clinical teaching. This lack of confidence could have a significant impact on patient care.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to understand the role of surgical Trainee Research Collaboratives (TRCs) in conducting randomised controlled trials and identify strategies to enhance trainee engagement in trials.DesignThis is a mixed methods study. We used observation of TRC meetings, semi-structured interviews and an online survey to explore trainees' motivations for engagement in trials and TRCs, including barriers and facilitators. Interviews were analysed thematically, alongside observation field notes. Survey responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. Strategies to enhance TRCs were developed at a workshop by 13 trial methodologists, surgical trainees, consultants and research nurses.SettingThis study was conducted within a secondary care setting in the UK.ParticipantsThe survey was sent to registered UK surgical trainees. TRC members and linked stakeholders across surgical specialties and UK regions were purposefully sampled for interviews.ResultsWe observed 5 TRC meetings, conducted 32 semi-structured interviews and analysed 73 survey responses. TRCs can mobilise trainees thus gaining wider access to patients. Trainees engaged with TRCs to improve patient care, surgical evidence and to help progress their careers. Trainees valued the TRC infrastructure, research expertise and mentoring. Challenges for trainees included clinical and other priorities, limited time and confidence, and recognition, especially by authorship. Key TRC strategies were consultant support, initial simple rapid studies, transparency of involvement and recognition for trainees (including authorship policies) and working with Clinical Trials Units and research nurses. A 6 min digital story on YouTube disseminated these strategies.ConclusionTrainee surgeons are mostly motivated to engage with trials and TRCs. Trainee engagement in TRCs can be enhanced through building relationships with key stakeholders, maximising multi-disciplinary working and offering training and career development opportunities.

Dataset Information

How do trainee doctors learn about research? Content analysis of Australian specialist colleges' intended research curricula.

Publications

How do trainee doctors learn about research? Content analysis of Australian specialist colleges' intended research curricula.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets