Dataset Information

Trainee Uncertainty around Intervening When Patients Decompensate.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Trainees in acute care specialties often grapple with the decision to perform an invasive procedure in a rapidly decompensating patient, for whom the benefits and risks are inherently uncertain. The difference between trainees who know when to act and when to seek supervision and those who do not is often linked to individual trainee psychological and cultural perceptions of uncertainty. But how much comfort with uncertainty relates to the situational context rather than the trainee traits is underexplored.

Objective

The objective of this study was to explore trainee actions around decompensating patients and assess the degree to which invasive intervention and supervision seeking depend on situational certainty or individual trait-based perceptions of uncertainty.

Methods

A total of 41 internal medicine residents completed a survey to measure anxiety related to uncertainty using the Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty (PRU) tool and to measure uncertainty avoidance using the Values Survey Module (VSM) before responding to 14 written emergency situations. Half of the scenarios contain sufficient diagnostic certainty to warrant aggressive intervention, and half lack sufficient diagnostic clarity to offset the risk of intervention. Mixed multivariable modeling was used to identify the relationship between planned invasive intervention, situational uncertainty, and trait-based perceptions of uncertainty measured in the PRU and VSM.

Results

Trainees' first actions were appropriate in 60% of cases. Multivariable modeling suggested that situational certainty was more predictive of upfront intervention (odds ratio [OR], 30.5; P < 0.0001) than trait-based PRU (OR, 1.22; P = 0.05) and VSM (OR, 1.73; P < 0.0001). Similarly, situational certainty was more predictive of reduced supervision seeking (OR, 0.20; P < 0.0001) than trait-based PRU (OR, 2.03; P < 0.001) and VSM (P = not significant).

Conclusions

Situation-specific certainty was more strongly correlated with invasive intervention in cases of decompensated patients than individual trainee traits. Focusing on trainee contextual understanding of procedural risk-benefit ratios in decompensating patients holds more promise for improving trainee actions and supervision seeking than tackling their perceptions around uncertainty.

SUBMITTER: Sibbald M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8787758 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has put considerable physical and emotional strain on frontline healthcare workers. Among frontline healthcare workers, physician trainees represent a unique group-functioning simultaneously as both learners and caregivers and experiencing considerable challenges during the pandemic. However, we have a limited understanding regarding the emotional effects and vulnerability experienced by trainees during the pandemic. We investigated the effects of trainee exposure to patients being tested for COVID-19 on their depression, anxiety, stress, burnout and professional fulfillment. All physician trainees at an academic medical center (n = 1375) were invited to participate in an online survey. We compared the measures of depression, anxiety, stress, burnout and professional fulfillment among trainees who were exposed to patients being tested for COVID-19 and those that were not, using univariable and multivariable models. We also evaluated perceived life stressors such as childcare, home schooling, personal finances and work-family balance among both groups. 393 trainees completed the survey (29% response rate). Compared to the non-exposed group, the exposed group had a higher prevalence of stress (29.4% vs. 18.9%), and burnout (46.3% vs. 33.7%). The exposed group also experienced moderate to extremely high perceived stress regarding childcare and had a lower work-family balance. Multivariable models indicated that trainees who were exposed to COVID-19 patients reported significantly higher stress (10.96 [95% CI, 9.65 to 12.46] vs 8.44 [95% CI, 7.3 to 9.76]; P = 0.043) and were more likely to be burned out (1.31 [95% CI, 1.21 to1.41] vs 1.07 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.19]; P = 0.002]. We also found that female trainees were more likely to be stressed (P = 0.043); while unmarried trainees were more likely to be depressed (P = 0.009), and marginally more likely to have anxiety (P = 0.051). To address these challenges, wellness programs should focus on sustaining current programs, develop new and targeted mental health resources that are widely accessible and devise strategies for creating awareness regarding these resources.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision making improves value-concordant decision-making around prostate cancer screening (PrCS). Yet, PrCS discussions remain complex, challenging and often emotional for physicians and average-risk men.ObjectiveIn July 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to identify priorities for funding agencies and development groups to promote evidence-based, value-concordant decisions between men at average risk for prostate cancer and their physicians.DesignTwo-day multidisciplinary expert panel in Atlanta, Georgia, with structured discussions and formal consensus processes.ParticipantsSixteen panelists represented diverse specialties (primary care, medical oncology, urology), disciplines (sociology, communication, medical education, clinical epidemiology) and market sectors (patient advocacy groups, Federal funding agencies, guideline-development organizations).Main measuresPanelists used guiding interactional and evaluation models to identify and rate strategies that might improve PrCS discussions and decisions for physicians, patients and health systems/society. Efficacy was defined as the likelihood of each strategy to impact outcomes. Effort was defined as the relative amount of effort to develop, implement and sustain the strategy. Each strategy was rated (1-7 scale; 7 = maximum) using group process software (ThinkTank(TM)). For each group, intervention strategies were grouped as financial/regulatory, educational, communication or attitudinal levers. For each strategy, barriers were identified.Key resultsHighly ranked strategies to improve value-concordant shared decision-making (SDM) included: changing outpatient clinic visit reimbursement to reward SDM; development of evidence-based, technology-assisted, point-of-service tools for physicians and patients; reframing confusing prostate cancer screening messages; providing pre-visit decision support interventions; utilizing electronic health records to promote benchmarking/best practices; providing additional training for physicians around value-concordant decision-making; and using re-accreditation to promote training.ConclusionsConference outcomes present an expert consensus of strategies likely to improve value-concordant prostate cancer screening decisions. In addition, the methodology used to obtain agreement provides a model of successful collaboration around this and future controversial cancer screening issues, which may be of interest to funding agencies, educators and policy makers.

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.