Medical Education最新文献

Introduction: The awarding gap between White and Black students in UK health curricula is well established. Critical race theory (CRT) is a lens to deconstruct pedagogic practice and consider the intersectionality of Black student lived experience to provide a realist critique of the phenomenon of Whiteness in higher education and the impact this has on Black attainment. Using one UK pharmacy programme as a case study, this paper aims to explore Black lived experience as a means of problematising and disrupting structural oppressions.

Methods: Sixteen Black students from one UK pharmacy degree programme were purposively recruited to the study. Love and breakup letter methodology (LBM) was used to facilitate sharing experiences of intersectionality in relation to their undergraduate education, with data thematically analysed through the lens of CRT.

Results: Two meta-themes (identity and inclusion; and cultural capital) and four subthemes (social capital; access; family expectations; and help-seeking) were identified. The intersectionality of Black students was articulated as not possessing the social capital and the 'language' to succeed within the White structures of the curriculum. The conflict of capital and the absence of Black culture gave rise to confined help-seeking behaviours. Whilst Black students experienced equality of access to the curriculum, an absence of rights to legitimate involvement (inclusion) worked to diminish participation in the curriculum.

Discussion: This is the first study to consider the intersectionality of Black pharmacy students in relation to academic awarding gaps and has found that oppressive educational structures marginalise and other Black experience. Black students experience the curriculum as a place where their social and cultural capital is undervalued, and as a White space where they lack the artefacts to succeed, leading to peripheral participation and detachment. The approach used in this study can be adopted across medical and health education as a means to problematise racial inequality through the exemplar of White:Black awarding gaps.

Context: Traditionally, the impact and outcomes from health professions education research (HPER) have focused on academic outputs, whereas in the humanities, research translation is conceptualised more broadly and creatively, including research-based performances like verbatim theatre. Translating HPER findings through the emotive and embodied nature of a verbatim theatre performance provides a unique opportunity to translate research data and create alternative learning spaces for rich and valuable insights that aligns with transformative pedagogy.

Approach: In this paper, we describe the background of verbatim theatre, a form of performance, which draws on a research participants' testimony and lived experience and how we used this creative approach to translate HPER findings. We discuss the experiential process of bringing an interdisciplinary team together, health professions academics and an academic playwright to craft a verbatim theatre script that provided space to honour the breadth, depth and diversity of participant voices from a large (n = 100) qualitative research study exploring professionalism and sociocultural factors in health professions education (HPE). Furthermore, we discuss the powerful potential of drawing on research-based performance to create alternative, safe and non-threatening learning spaces to resonate with and experience HPER in new and transformative ways. Finally, we offer reflexive insights on the key opportunities and challenges we encountered in translating HPER into a verbatim theatre performance.

Conclusions: Verbatim theatre presents an innovative and creative way to communicate and translate HPER. This paper offers research and pedagogical insights in translating research into verbatim theatre to support transformative pedagogy and practice in HPE. In conclusion, we encourage other health professions researchers to consider this dynamic and creative approach to transforming HPE.

Context: Much remains unanswered regarding how clinical reasoning is learned in the clinical environment. This study attempts to unravel how novice medical students learn to reason, by examining how they make sense of the clinical patient encounter.

Method: The current study was part of a greater research project employing constructivist grounded theory (CGT) to develop a learning model of clinical reasoning. Introducing the sensemaking perspective, as a sensitising concept, we conducted a second level analytic phase with CGT, to further advance our previously developed model. This involved re-examining collected data from semi-structured interviews, participant observations and field interviews of novice students during their early clinical clerkships.

Results: A learning model of how medical students make sense of the patient encounter emerged from the analysis. At its core lie three interdependent processes that co-constitute the students' clinical sensemaking activity. Framing the situation is the process whereby students discern salient situational elements, place them into a meaningful relationship and integrate them into a clinical problem. Inquiring into the situation is the process whereby students gain further insight into the situation by determining which questions need to be asked. Lastly, taking meaningful action is the process whereby students carve out a pathway of action, appropriate for the circumstances. Tensions experienced during these processes impair clinical sensemaking.

Conclusions: The study provides an empirically informed learning model of clinical reasoning, during the early curricular stages. The model attempts to capture the complexity of medical practice, as students learn to recognise and respond to what constitutes the essence of a clinical situation. In this way, it contributes to a conceptual shift in how we think and talk about clinical reasoning. It introduces the concept of clinical sensemaking, as the act of carving a tangible clinical problem out of an often undetermined clinical situation and pursuing justified action.

Introduction: Competence committees (CCs) centre their work around documentation of trainees' performance; undocumented contributions (i.e. informal, unrecorded material like personal judgements, experiential anecdotes and contextual information) evoke suspicion even though they may play a role in decision making. This qualitative multiple case study incorporates insights from a social practice perspective on writing to examine the use of undocumented contributions by the CCs of two large post-graduate training programmes, one in a more procedural (MP) speciality and the other in a less procedural (LP) one.

Methods: Data were collected via observations of meetings and semi-structured interviews with CC members. In the analysis, conversations were organised into triptychs of lead-up, undocumented contribution(s), and follow-up. We then created thick descriptions around the undocumented contributions, drawing on conversational context and interview data to assign possible motivations and significance.

Results: We found no instances in which undocumented contributions superseded the contents of a trainee's file or stood in for missing documentation. The number of undocumented contributions varied between the MP CC (six instances over two meetings) and the LP CC (22 instances over three meetings). MP CC discussions emphasised Entrustable Professional Activity (EPA) observations, whereas LP CC members paid more attention to narrative data. The divergent orientations of the CCs-adding an 'advis[ing]/guid[ing]' role versus focusing simply on evaluation-offers the most compelling explanation. In lead-ups, undocumented contributions were prompted by missing and flawed documentation, conflicting evidence and documentation at odds with members' perceptions. Recognising other 'red flags' in documentation often required professional experience. In follow-ups, purposes served by undocumented contributions varied with context and were difficult to generalise; we, therefore, provide deeper analysis of two vignettes to illustrate.

Conclusions: Our data suggest undocumented contributions often serve best efforts to ground decisions in documentation. We would encourage CC practices and policies be rooted in more nuanced approaches to documentation.

Context: Politics is characterised by power relations, and the deployment of power is inescapably political. In an increasingly globalised and interconnected modern world, politics is shaping the field of medical education more than ever before. Global frameworks that classify peoples and places are political tools that are fundamentally shaped by hegemonic knowledge systems. Despite this, they continue to form the basis for global thinking and practices, including in medical education. Political analysis can help to expose and challenge such thinking.

Approach: To better understand impacts of globalisation in medical education, we explore the previously under-examined political dimensions that underpin it, focusing particularly on deconstructing power relations. We situate our analysis of global medical education in political terms, including through examination of ideology, economics, market and the enduring effects of colonialism. We interrogate the construct of the Global South (GS), considering the geopolitical and historical ideas that have enabled it to be widely propagated. We go on to examine the consequences of the GS construct in medical education and consider what this tells us about how power is enacted in the field.

Conclusions: In analysing the politics of global medical education, we shed light on how power is exerted and draw attention to forces that permit and enable trends, policies and positions. Notwithstanding the emancipatory rhetoric that has been associated with the GS construct, we highlight its reductive potential and argue that it can lead to an oversimplification of power relations and vested interests. Given the growing recognition that educational approaches do not transfer well across countries and cultures, we encourage the medical education community to consider why ideas from more dominant countries continue to be imitated so routinely. In doing so, we urge them to use political lenses to recognise the influence of multiple complex and interconnected forces of global power that shape all aspects of medical education.

Background: For medical training to be deemed successful, in addition to gaining the skills required to make appropriate clinical decisions, trainees must learn how to make good personal decisions. These decisions may affect satisfaction with career choice, work-life balance, and their ability to maintain/improve clinical performance over time-outcomes that can impact future wellness. Here, the authors introduce a decision-making framework with the goal of improving our understanding of personal decisions.

Methods: Stemming from the business world, the Cynefin framework describes five decision-making domains: clear, complicated, complex, chaotic, and confusion, and a key inference of this framework is that decision-making can be improved by first identifying the decision-making domain. Personal decisions are largely complex-so applying linear decision-making strategies is unlikely to help in this domain.

Results: The available data suggest that the outcomes of personal decisions are suboptimal, and the authors propose three mechanisms to explain these findings: (1) Complex decision is susceptible to attribute substitution where we subconsciously trade these decisions for easier decisions; (2) predictions are prone to cognitive biases, such as assuming our situation will remain constant (linear projection fallacy), believing that accomplishing a goal will deliver lasting happiness (arrival bias), or overestimating benefits and underestimating costs of future tasks (planning fallacy); and (3) complex decisions have an inherently higher failure rate than complicated decisions because they are the result of an ongoing, dynamic person-by-situation interaction and, as such, have more time to fail and more ways to do so.

Discussion: Based upon their view that personal decisions are complex, the authors propose strategies to improve satisfaction with personal decisions, including increasing awareness of biases that may impact personal decisions. Recognising that the outcome of personal decisions can change over time, they also suggest additional interventions to manage these decisions, such as different forms of mentoring.

Purpose: There is a shortage of generalist physicians globally impacting health equity and access to care. An important way in which medical schools can demonstrate social accountability is by graduating learners interested in careers in generalism. While generalism is endorsed as a matter of principle in medical education, how this translates into curricula is less clear. The aim of this study was to identify how generalism is understood and supported by family physician educational leaders in undergraduate medical education (UME) in Canada.

Methods: We conducted a qualitative study, interviewing 38 family medicine leaders in UME across all 17 Canadian medical schools. We examined the data with template analysis, informed by the iceberg model of systems thinking.

Results: Four themes were identified: (1) Teaching and learning strategies in support of generalism-a consistent range existed across UME curricula; (2) Curriculum patterns-changes in leadership and curriculum reform created positive or negative feedback loops that promoted or hindered initiatives to support generalism; (3) Curriculum structures-organ-system-based curricula and availability of generalist faculty presented particular challenges to teaching generalist approaches; (4) Mental models and ways of knowing-the preponderance of biomedical frameworks of thinking in curricula unconsciously undermined generalist approaches to patient care.

Conclusions: UME programmes promoted generalism through a range of teaching activities and strategies, but these efforts were countered by curriculum structures and mental models that perpetuate epistemic inequity between biomedical approaches to medical education and generalist models of care. Novel curricular frameworks are needed to align undergraduate programmes' commitment to social accountability with community-based need.

Context: One central consideration in health professions education (HPE) is to ensure we are making sound and justifiable decisions based on the assessment instruments we use on health professionals. To achieve this goal, HPE assessment researchers have drawn on Kane's argument-based framework to ascertain the validity of their assessment tools. However, the original four-inference model proposed by Kane - frequently used in HPE validation research - has its limitations in terms of what each inference entails and what claims and sources of backing are housed in each inference. The under-specification in the four-inference model has led to inconsistent practices in HPE validation research, posing challenges for (i) researchers who want to evaluate the validity of different HPE assessment tools and/or (ii) researchers who are new to test validation and need to establish a coherent understanding of argument-based validation.

Methods: To address these identified concerns, this article introduces the expanded seven-inference argument-based validation framework that is established practice in the field of language testing and assessment (LTA). We explicate (i) why LTA researchers experienced the need to further specify the original four Kanean inferences; (ii) how LTA validation research defines each of their seven inferences and (iii) what claims, assumptions and sources of backing are associated with each inference. Sampling six representative validation studies in HPE, we demonstrate why an expanded model and a shared disciplinary validation framework can facilitate the examination of the validity evidence in diverse HPE validation contexts.

Conclusions: We invite HPE validation researchers to experiment with the seven-inference argument-based framework from LTA to evaluate its usefulness to HPE. We also call for greater interdisciplinary dialogue between HPE and LTA since both disciplines share many fundamental concerns about language use, communication skills, assessment practices and validity in assessment instruments.