Dataset Information

How supervisor trust affects early residents' learning and patient care: A qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Trust between supervisors and trainees mediates trainee participation and learning. A resident (postgraduate) trainee's understanding of their supervisor's trust can affect their perceptions of their patient care responsibilities, opportunities for learning, and overall growth as physicians. While the supervisor perspective of trust has been well studied, less is known about how resident trainees recognize supervisor trust and how it affects them.

Methods

In this qualitative study, 21 pediatric residents were interviewed at a single institution. Questions addressed their experiences during their first post-graduate year (PGY-1) on inpatient wards. Each interviewee was asked to describe three different patient care scenarios in which they perceived optimal, under-, and over-trust from their resident supervisor. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

Residents recognized and interpreted their supervisor's trust through four factors: supervisor, task, relationship, and context. Optimal trust was associated with supervision balancing supervisor availability and resident independence, tasks affording participation in decision-making, trusting relationships with supervisors, and a workplace fostering appropriate autonomy and team inclusivity. The effects of supervisor trust on residents fell into three themes: learning experiences, attitudes and self-confidence, and identities and roles. Optimal trust supported learning via tailored guidance, confidence and lessened vulnerability, and a sense of patient ownership and team belonging.

Discussion

Understanding how trainees recognize supervisor trust can enhance interventions for improving the dialogue of trust between supervisors and trainees. It is important for supervisors to be cognizant of their trainees' interpretations of trust because it affects how trainees understand their patient care roles, perceive autonomy, and approach learning.

SUBMITTER: Gin BC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8633204 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Handoffs are a complex procedure whose success relies on mutual discussion rather than simple information transfer. Particularly among trainees, handoffs present major opportunities for medical error. Previous research has explored best practices and pitfalls in general handoff education but has not discussed barriers specific to anesthesiology residents. This study characterizes the experiences of residents in anesthesiology as they learn handoff technique in order to inform strategies for teaching this important component of perioperative care. METHODS:In 2016, we conducted a semi-structured interview study of 30 anesthesia residents across all three postgraduate years at a major academic hospital. Interviews were coded by two coders using a grounded theory approach and an iterative process designed to enhance reliability and validity. RESULTS:Residents cited lack of consistency as a major impediment to proper handoff education. They found the impact of lectures and written materials to be limited. The level of guidance and direction they received from one-to-one attendings was described as highly variable. Residents' comfort in executing handoffs was heavily dependent on location and situation. They felt that coordination among the parties involved in the handoff was difficult to achieve, causing confusion about the importance of handoffs as well as proper protocol. Finally, residents offered opinions on when handoff education should occur during the residency and had several recommendations for its improving, including standardization of key handoff topics. CONCLUSIONS:In a single center study of anesthesiology resident handoff education, residents exhibited confusion related to a perceived disconnect between the stated importance of effective handoffs and a lack of consensus on proper handoff technique. Standardization of curriculum and framing expectations has the potential to enhance resident handoff training in academic anesthesia departments.

Project description:BackgroundWorkforce projections indicate a potential shortage of up to 31,000 adult primary care providers by the year 2025. Approximately 80 % of internal medicine residents and nearly two-thirds of primary care internal medicine residents do not plan to have a career in primary care or general internal medicine.ObjectiveWe aimed to explore contextual and programmatic factors within primary care residency training environments that may influence career choices.DesignThis was a qualitative study based on semi-structured, in-person interviews.ParticipantsThree primary care internal medicine residency programs were purposefully selected to represent a diversity of training environments. Second and third year residents were interviewed.ApproachWe used a survey guide developed from pilot interviews and existing literature. Three members of the research team independently coded the transcripts and developed the code structure based on the constant comparative method. The research team identified emerging themes and refined codes. ATLAS.ti was used for the analysis.Key resultsWe completed 24 interviews (12 second-year residents, and 12 third-year residents). The age range was 27-39 years. Four recurrent themes characterized contextual and programmatic factors contributing to residents' decision-making: resident expectations of a career in primary care, navigation of the boundary between social needs and medical needs, mentorship and perceptions of primary care, and structural features of the training program.ConclusionsAddressing aspects of training that may discourage residents from careers in primary care such as lack of diversity in outpatient experiences and resident frustration with their inability to address social needs of patients, and strengthening aspects of training that may encourage interests in careers in primary care such as mentorship and protected time away from inpatient responsibilities during primary care rotations, may increase the proportion of residents enrolled in primary care training programs who pursue a career in primary care.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This paper explores Norwegian doctors' use of and experiences with a national tool for sharing core patient health information. The summary care record (SCR; the Kjernejournal in Norwegian) is the first national system for sharing patient information among the various levels and institutions of health care throughout the country. The health authorities have invested heavily in the development, implementation and deployment of this tool, and as of 2017 all Norwegian citizens have a personalised SCR. However, as there remains limited knowledge about health professionals' use of, experiences with and opinions regarding this new tool, the purpose of this study was to explore doctors' direct SCR experiences. METHODS:We conducted 25 in-depth interviews with 10 doctors from an emergency ward, 5 doctors from an emergency clinic and 10 doctors from 5 general practitioner offices. We then transcribed, thematically coded and analysed the interviews utilising a grounded theory approach. RESULTS:The SCRs contain several features for providing core patient information that is particularly relevant in acute or emergency situations; nonetheless, we found that the doctors generally used only one of the tool's six functions, namely, the pharmaceutical summary. In addition, they primarily used this summary for a few subgroups of patients, including in the emergency ward for unconscious patients, for elderly patients with multiple prescriptions and for patients with substance abuse conditions. The primary difference of the pharmaceutical summary compared with the other functions of the tool is that patient information is automatically updated from a national pharmaceutical server, while other clinically relevant functions, like the critical information category, require manual updates by the health professionals themselves, thereby potentially causing variations in the accuracy, completeness and trustworthiness of the data. CONCLUSION:Therefore, we can assume that the popularity of the pharmaceutical summary among doctors is based on their preference to place their trust in - and therefore more often utilise - automatically updated information. In addition, the doctors' lack of trust in manually updated information might have severe implications for the future success of the SCR and for similar digital tools for sharing patient information.