Dataset Information

Judging residents' performance: a qualitative study using grounded theory.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Although program directors judge residents' performance for summative decisions, little is known about how they do this. This study examined what information program directors use and how they value this information in making a judgment of residents' performance and what residents think of this process. METHODS:Sixteen semi-structured interviews were held with residents and program directors from different hospitals in the Netherlands in 2015-2016. Participants were recruited from internal medicine, surgery and radiology. Transcripts were analysed using grounded theory methodology. Concepts and themes were identified by iterative constant comparison. RESULTS:When approaching semi-annual meetings with residents, program directors report primarily gathering information from the following: assessment tools, faculty members and from their own experience with residents. They put more value on faculty's comments during meetings and in the corridors than on feedback provided in the assessment tools. They are influenced by their own beliefs about learning and education in valuing feedback. Residents are aware that faculty members discuss their performance in meetings, but they believe the assessment tools provide the most important proof to demonstrate their clinical competency. CONCLUSIONS:Residents think that feedback in the assessment tools is the most important proof to demonstrate their performance, whereas program directors scarcely use this feedback to form a judgment about residents' performance. They rely heavily on remarks of faculty in meetings instead. Therefore, residents' performance may be better judged in group meetings that are organised to enhance optimal information sharing and decision making about residents' performance.

SUBMITTER: Duitsman ME

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6325830 | biostudies-other | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Judging residents' performance: a qualitative study using grounded theory.

Duitsman Marrigje E ME Fluit Cornelia R M G CRMG van der Goot Wieke E WE Ten Kate-Booij Marianne M de Graaf Jacqueline J Jaarsma Debbie A D C DADC

BMC medical education 20190108 1

<h4>Background</h4>Although program directors judge residents' performance for summative decisions, little is known about how they do this. This study examined what information program directors use and how they value this information in making a judgment of residents' performance and what residents think of this process.<h4>Methods</h4>Sixteen semi-structured interviews were held with residents and program directors from different hospitals in the Netherlands in 2015-2016. Participants were rec ...[more]

PMID: 30621674

Similar Datasets

Project description:Evidence-based methods to identify behavioural problems among children are not regularly used within the Swedish Child healthcare. A new procedure was therefore introduced to assess children through parent- and preschool teacher reports using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). This study aims to explore nurses', preschool teachers' and parents' perspectives of this new information sharing model. Using the grounded theory methodology, semi-structured interviews with nurses (n = 10) at child health clinics, preschool teachers (n = 13) and parents (n = 11) of 3-, 4- and 5-year-old children were collected and analysed between March 2014 and June 2014. The analysis was conducted using constant comparative method. The participants were sampled purposively within a larger trial in Sweden. Results indicate that all stakeholders shared a desire to have a complete picture of the child's health. The perceptions that explain why the stakeholders were in favour of the new procedure-the 'causal conditions' in a grounded theory model-included: (1) Nurses thought that visits after 18-months were unsatisfactory, (2) Preschool teachers wanted to identify children with difficulties and (3) Parents viewed preschool teachers as being qualified to assess children. However, all stakeholders had doubts as to whether there was a reliable way to assess children's behaviour. Although nurses found the SDQ to be useful for their clinical evaluation, they noticed that not all parents chose to participate. Both teachers and parents acknowledged benefits of information sharing. However, the former had concerns about parental reactions to their assessments and the latter about how personal information was handled. The theoretical model developed describes that the causal conditions and current context of child healthcare in many respects endorse the introduction of information sharing. However, successful implementation requires considerable work to address barriers: the tension between normative thinking versus helping children with developmental problems for preschool teachers and dealing with privacy issues and inequity in participation for parents.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-harm (SH) accounts for over 5% of the workload of emergency ambulance services, and therefore Paramedics are often the first health professional in contact with people who SH. The authors of this paper have reported elsewhere the significant gaps in our understandings which exist surrounding this early care interaction, and some of the challenges paramedics and opportunities in paramedic care for people who SH. This study aimed to explore paramedics' perceptions of caring for those who SH using Evolved Grounded Theory Methodology.MethodsThis study took place between 2014-2016 in one UK ambulance service covering a population of three million people. Semi structured interviews were conducted, purposively sampling paramedics until saturation was reached. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded through open, axial, and selective levels of coding, identifying the Basic Social Process (BSP) and developing a Grounded Theory. A second researcher (SH) independently reviewed early results, which were also member-checked with participants.ResultsEleven paramedics were interviewed. The following six categories emerged: Context; Judgements and values; Isolation and system failure; Managing risk; Competence at the boundary of mental and physical health needs; Professional, legal and ethical tensions. The BSP Decision making in a context of risk was identified. The final Grounded Theory that emerged was one of 'Wicked Complexity of paramedic care for people who SH, which includes usual factors such as tiredness and frequent callers, heightened factors including lack of support and pathways, and factors specific to SH such assessing mental health and suicide risk.ConclusionsThis study builds on a very small body of literature to have explored paramedic care for people who SH and has found that this care interaction provides uniquely complex challenges. The multiple influences within the categories defined in this study need considering conjointly when making improvements to care.

Project description:BackgroundPoor adherence is the main barrier to the effectiveness of HIV medication. The objective of this study was to explore and conceptualize patterns and difficulties in physicians' work with patients' adherence to HIV medication. No previous studies on this subject have directly observed physicians' behavior.MethodsThis is a qualitative, cross-sectional study. We used a Grounded Theory approach to let the main issues in physicians' work with patients' adherence emerge without preconceiving the focus of the study. We included physicians from HIV clinics in San Francisco, U.S.A. as well as from Copenhagen, Denmark. Physicians were observed during their clinical work and subsequently interviewed with a semi-structured interview guide. Notes on observations and transcribed interviews were analyzed with NVivo software.ResultsWe enrolled 16 physicians from San Francisco and 18 from Copenhagen. When we discovered that physicians and patients seldom discussed adherence issues in depth, we made adherence communication and its barriers the focus of the study. The main patterns in physicians' communication with patients about adherence were similar in both settings. An important barrier to in-depth adherence communication was that some physicians felt it was awkward to explore the possibility of non-adherence if there were no objective signs of treatment failure, because patients could feel "accused." To overcome this awkwardness, some physicians consciously tried to "de-shame" patients regarding non-adherence. However, a recurring theme was that physicians often suspected non-adherence even when patients did not admit to have missed any doses, and physicians had difficulties handling this low believability of patient statements. We here develop a simple four-step, three-factor model of physicians' adherence communication. The four steps are: deciding whether to ask about adherence or not, pre-questioning preparations, phrasing the question, and responding to the patient's answer. The three factors/determinants are: physicians' perceptions of adherence, awkwardness, and believability.ConclusionCommunication difficulties were a main barrier in physicians' work with patients' adherence to HIV medication. The proposed model of physicians' communication with patients about adherence--and the identification of awkwardness and believability as key issues--may aid thinking on the subject for use in clinical practice and future research.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Inappropriate gestational weight gain in pregnancy may negatively impact health outcomes for mothers and babies. While optimal gestational weight gain is often not acheived, effective counselling by antenatal health care providers is recommended. It is not known if gestational weight gain counselling practices differ by type of antenatal health care provider, namely, family physicians, midwives and obstetricians, and what barriers impede the delivery of such counselling. The objective of this study was to understand the counselling of family physicians, midwives and obstetricians in Ontario and what factors act as barriers and enablers to the provision of counselling about GWG. METHODS:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven family physicians, six midwives and five obstetricians in Ontario, Canada, where pregnancy care is universally covered. Convenience and purposive sampling techniques were employed. A grounded theory approach was used for data analysis. Codes, categories and themes were generated using NVIVO software. RESULTS:Providers reported that they offered gestational weight gain counselling to all patients early in pregnancy. Counselling topics included gestational weight gain targets, nutrition & exercise, gestational diabetes prevention, while dispelling misconceptions about gestational weight gain. Most do not routinely address the adverse outcomes linked to gestational weight gain, or daily caloric intake goals for pregnancy. The health care providers all faced similar barriers to counselling including patient attitudes, social and cultural issues, and accessibility of resources. Patient enthusiasm and access to a dietician motivated health care providers to provide more in-depth gestational weight gain counselling. CONCLUSION:Reported gestational weight gain counselling practices were similar between midwives, obstetricians and family physicians. Antenatal knowledge translation tools for patients and health care providers are needed, and would seem to be suitable for use across all three types of health care provider specialties.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Hearing loss is a chronic condition affecting 12?million individuals in the UK. People with hearing loss regularly experience difficulties interacting in everyday conversations. These difficulties in communication can result in a person with hearing loss withdrawing from social situations and becoming isolated. While hearing loss research has largely deployed quantitative methods to investigate various aspects of the condition, qualitative research is becoming more widespread. Grounded theory is a specific qualitative methodology that has been used to establish novel theories on the experiences of living with hearing loss. METHOD AND ANALYSIS:The aim of this systematic review is to establish how grounded theory has been applied to investigate the psychosocial aspects of hearing loss. Methods are reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 checklist. Studies included in this review will have applied grounded theory as an overarching methodology or have grounded theory embedded among other methodologies. Studies included will have adult participants (?18 years) who are either people with an acquired hearing loss, their family and friends (communication partners), or healthcare practitioners including audiologists, general practitioners, ear, nose and throat specialists and hearing therapists. The quality of application of grounded theory in each study will be assessed using the Guideline for Reporting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Research Studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:As only secondary data will be used in this systematic review, ethical approval is not required. No other ethical issues are foreseen. This review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO). Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and at relevant academic conferences. Findings may also be published in relevant professional and third sector newsletters and magazines as appropriate. Data will inform future research and guideline development. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019134197.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore paramedic experiences of providing care during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and develop theory in order to inform future policy and practice.DesignQualitative study using constructivist evolved grounded theory (EGT) methodology. One-to-one semistructured interviews were conducted using a general interview guide. Voice over Internet Protocol was used through Skype.SettingConducted between March 2020 and November 2020 in the Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Services Trust UK which serves a population of three million.ParticipantsParamedics were recruited through a poster circulated by email and social media. Following purposive sampling, 20 Paramedics were enrolled and interviewed.ResultsEmergent categories included: Protect me to protect you, Rapid disruption and adaptation, Trust in communication and information and United in hardship. The Basic Social Process was recognised to involve Tragic Choices, conceptualised through an EGT including Tragic personal and professional choices including concerns over personnel protective equipment (PPE), protecting themselves and their families, impact on mental health and difficult clinical decisions, Tragic organisational choices including decision making support, communication, mental health and well-being and Tragic societal choices involving public shows of support, utilisation and resourcing of health services.ConclusionsRich insights were revealed into paramedic care during the COVID-19 pandemic consistent with other research. This care was provided in the context of competing and conflicting decisions and resources, where Tragic Choices have to be made which may challenge life's pricelessness. Well-being support, clinical decision making, appropriate PPE and healthcare resourcing are all influenced by choices made before and during the pandemic, and will continue as we recover and plan for future pandemics. The impact of COVID-19 may persist, especially if we fail to learn, if not we risk losing more lives in this and future pandemics and threatening the overwhelming collective effort which united society in hardship when responding to the COVID-19 Pandemic.Trial registration numberIRAS ID: 282 623.

Dataset Information

Judging residents' performance: a qualitative study using grounded theory.

Publications

Judging residents' performance: a qualitative study using grounded theory.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure