Jessica E Murphy, Hussain Khawaja, Dino Messina, Joao Filipe G Monteiro, Jennifer Jeremiah, Kelly McGarry
{"title":"Implementation, Reach, and Effectiveness of the Direct Observation of Residents in Clinic Program.","authors":"Jessica E Murphy, Hussain Khawaja, Dino Messina, Joao Filipe G Monteiro, Jennifer Jeremiah, Kelly McGarry","doi":"10.4103/efh.efh_90_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Direct observation is important, yet medical residents are rarely observed. We implemented and evaluated a direct observation program in resident clinics to increase the frequency of observation and feedback and improve perceptions about direct observation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We assigned faculty as observers in our resident clinics between June 2019 and February 2020. We surveyed residents and faculty before and after the program. Faculty completed a form for each observation performed. We analyzed surveys to examine changes in barriers, frequency and type of observations and feedback, and attitudes toward observation. The analytical sample included 38 and 37 pre- and postresident surveys, respectively, and 20 and 25 pre- and postfaculty surveys, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Resident survey response rates were 32.3% (40/124) pre- and 30.7% (39/127) postintervention. Most residents (76% [pre], 86% [post], P = 0.258) reported being observed in at least one of the four areas: history, examination, counseling, or wrap-up. We received observation tracking forms on 68% of eligible residents. Observed history taking increased from 30% to 79% after the program (P = 0.0010). Survey response rates for faculty were 64.7% (22/34) pre- and 67.5% (25/37) postintervention. Fewer faculty reported time (80% [pre], 52% [post], P = 0.051) and competing demands (65% [pre], 52% [post], P = 0.380) as barriers postintervention. Fewer faculty postintervention viewed observation as a valuable teaching tool (100% [pre], 79% [post], P = 0.0534). All faculty who did not view observation as valuable were the least experienced.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Assigning faculty as observers can increase observation, especially in history taking, though data suggest an increase in negative perceptions of observation by faculty.</p>","PeriodicalId":46742,"journal":{"name":"Education for Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education for Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/efh.efh_90_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Direct observation is important, yet medical residents are rarely observed. We implemented and evaluated a direct observation program in resident clinics to increase the frequency of observation and feedback and improve perceptions about direct observation.
Methods: We assigned faculty as observers in our resident clinics between June 2019 and February 2020. We surveyed residents and faculty before and after the program. Faculty completed a form for each observation performed. We analyzed surveys to examine changes in barriers, frequency and type of observations and feedback, and attitudes toward observation. The analytical sample included 38 and 37 pre- and postresident surveys, respectively, and 20 and 25 pre- and postfaculty surveys, respectively.
Results: Resident survey response rates were 32.3% (40/124) pre- and 30.7% (39/127) postintervention. Most residents (76% [pre], 86% [post], P = 0.258) reported being observed in at least one of the four areas: history, examination, counseling, or wrap-up. We received observation tracking forms on 68% of eligible residents. Observed history taking increased from 30% to 79% after the program (P = 0.0010). Survey response rates for faculty were 64.7% (22/34) pre- and 67.5% (25/37) postintervention. Fewer faculty reported time (80% [pre], 52% [post], P = 0.051) and competing demands (65% [pre], 52% [post], P = 0.380) as barriers postintervention. Fewer faculty postintervention viewed observation as a valuable teaching tool (100% [pre], 79% [post], P = 0.0534). All faculty who did not view observation as valuable were the least experienced.
Discussion: Assigning faculty as observers can increase observation, especially in history taking, though data suggest an increase in negative perceptions of observation by faculty.
期刊介绍:
Education for Health: Change in Learning and Practice (EfH) is the scholarly, peer-reviewed journal of The Network: Towards Unity for Health. Our readers are health professionals, health professions educators and learners, health care researchers, policymakers, community leaders and administrators from all over the world. We publish original studies, reviews, think pieces, works in progress and commentaries on current trends, issues, and controversies. We especially want to provide our international readers with fresh ideas and innovative models of education and health services that can enable them to be maximally responsive to the healthcare needs of the communities in which they work and learn.