小组反思干预(Schwartz Rounds)如何在医疗保健本科设置中发挥作用?现实主义评论

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Perspectives on Medical Education Pub Date : 2023-12-19 DOI:10.5334/pme.930
Duncan Hamilton, Cath Taylor, J. Maben
{"title":"小组反思干预(Schwartz Rounds)如何在医疗保健本科设置中发挥作用?现实主义评论","authors":"Duncan Hamilton, Cath Taylor, J. Maben","doi":"10.5334/pme.930","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Schwartz Rounds (“Rounds”) are a confidential group reflection forum, increasingly adopted to support pre-registration healthcare students. This realist review aims to understand what the available literature and key informant interviews can tell us about Rounds in this setting, asking what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and why? Methods: Published literature discussing Rounds in undergraduate settings were analysed using realist methods to describe how, for whom and in which contexts Rounds work. Four key informants were interviewed using realist methods, to further develop, test and refine a programme theory of Rounds in undergraduate settings. Results: We identified five core features and five contextual adaptations. Core: Rounds provide a reflective space to discuss emotional challenges; Rounds promote an open and humanised professional culture; Rounds offer role-modelling of vulnerability, enabling interpersonal connectedness; Rounds are impactful when focused on emotional and relational elements; Rounds offer reflective insights from a wide range of perspectives. Contextual adaptations: Rounds allow reflection to be more engaging for students when they are non-mandatory; perceptions of safety within a Round varies based on multiple factors; adapting timing and themes to students’ changing needs may improve engagement; resonance with stories is affected by clinical experience levels; online adaptation can increase reach but may risk psychological safety. Discussion: Schwartz Rounds are a unique intervention that can support healthcare students through their pre-registration education. The five “core” and five “contextual adaptation” features presented identify important considerations for organisations implementing Rounds for their undergraduates.","PeriodicalId":48532,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Medical Education","volume":" 21","pages":"550 - 564"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Does a Group Reflection Intervention (Schwartz Rounds) Work within Healthcare Undergraduate Settings? A Realist Review\",\"authors\":\"Duncan Hamilton, Cath Taylor, J. Maben\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/pme.930\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction: Schwartz Rounds (“Rounds”) are a confidential group reflection forum, increasingly adopted to support pre-registration healthcare students. This realist review aims to understand what the available literature and key informant interviews can tell us about Rounds in this setting, asking what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and why? Methods: Published literature discussing Rounds in undergraduate settings were analysed using realist methods to describe how, for whom and in which contexts Rounds work. Four key informants were interviewed using realist methods, to further develop, test and refine a programme theory of Rounds in undergraduate settings. Results: We identified five core features and five contextual adaptations. Core: Rounds provide a reflective space to discuss emotional challenges; Rounds promote an open and humanised professional culture; Rounds offer role-modelling of vulnerability, enabling interpersonal connectedness; Rounds are impactful when focused on emotional and relational elements; Rounds offer reflective insights from a wide range of perspectives. Contextual adaptations: Rounds allow reflection to be more engaging for students when they are non-mandatory; perceptions of safety within a Round varies based on multiple factors; adapting timing and themes to students’ changing needs may improve engagement; resonance with stories is affected by clinical experience levels; online adaptation can increase reach but may risk psychological safety. Discussion: Schwartz Rounds are a unique intervention that can support healthcare students through their pre-registration education. The five “core” and five “contextual adaptation” features presented identify important considerations for organisations implementing Rounds for their undergraduates.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives on Medical Education\",\"volume\":\" 21\",\"pages\":\"550 - 564\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives on Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.930\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.930","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:Schwartz Rounds("Rounds")是一种保密的小组反思论坛,越来越多地被用于支持注册前医疗保健专业的学生。这篇现实主义评论旨在了解现有文献和关键信息提供者访谈能够告诉我们什么是在这种环境下的 Rounds,询问什么有效、对谁有效、在什么情况下有效以及为什么有效?方法:使用现实主义方法分析了已发表的讨论本科生环境中 Rounds 的文献,以描述 Rounds 如何、对谁以及在什么情况下起作用。采用现实主义方法对四位主要信息提供者进行了访谈,以进一步发展、检验和完善本科生环境中的 "Rounds "计划理论。结果:我们确定了五个核心特征和五个背景调整。核心特征Rounds 为讨论情感挑战提供了一个反思空间;Rounds 促进了一种开放和人性化的专业文化;Rounds 提供了脆弱的榜样,促成了人与人之间的联系;Rounds 在关注情感和关系要素时具有影响力;Rounds 从广泛的角度提供了反思性见解。适应环境:非强制性的 "Rounds "可以让学生更投入地进行反思;"Rounds "中的安全感因多种因素而异;根据学生不断变化的需求调整时间和主题可以提高参与度;临床经验水平会影响对故事的共鸣;在线调整可以扩大覆盖面,但可能会危及心理安全。讨论:Schwartz Rounds 是一种独特的干预措施,可以帮助医学生完成注册前教育。所介绍的五个 "核心 "和五个 "情境适应 "特征为机构为本科生实施 Rounds 确定了重要的考虑因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How Does a Group Reflection Intervention (Schwartz Rounds) Work within Healthcare Undergraduate Settings? A Realist Review
Introduction: Schwartz Rounds (“Rounds”) are a confidential group reflection forum, increasingly adopted to support pre-registration healthcare students. This realist review aims to understand what the available literature and key informant interviews can tell us about Rounds in this setting, asking what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and why? Methods: Published literature discussing Rounds in undergraduate settings were analysed using realist methods to describe how, for whom and in which contexts Rounds work. Four key informants were interviewed using realist methods, to further develop, test and refine a programme theory of Rounds in undergraduate settings. Results: We identified five core features and five contextual adaptations. Core: Rounds provide a reflective space to discuss emotional challenges; Rounds promote an open and humanised professional culture; Rounds offer role-modelling of vulnerability, enabling interpersonal connectedness; Rounds are impactful when focused on emotional and relational elements; Rounds offer reflective insights from a wide range of perspectives. Contextual adaptations: Rounds allow reflection to be more engaging for students when they are non-mandatory; perceptions of safety within a Round varies based on multiple factors; adapting timing and themes to students’ changing needs may improve engagement; resonance with stories is affected by clinical experience levels; online adaptation can increase reach but may risk psychological safety. Discussion: Schwartz Rounds are a unique intervention that can support healthcare students through their pre-registration education. The five “core” and five “contextual adaptation” features presented identify important considerations for organisations implementing Rounds for their undergraduates.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
31
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊介绍: Perspectives on Medical Education mission is support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Official journal of the The Netherlands Association of Medical Education (NVMO). Perspectives on Medical Education is a non-profit Open Access journal with no charges for authors to submit or publish an article, and the full text of all articles is freely available immediately upon publication, thanks to the sponsorship of The Netherlands Association for Medical Education. Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. Perspectives on Medical Education positions itself at the dynamic intersection of educational research and clinical education. While other journals in the health professional education domain orient predominantly to education researchers or to clinical educators, Perspectives positions itself at the collaborative interface between these perspectives. This unique positioning reflects the journal’s mission to support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Reflecting this mission, the journal both welcomes original research papers arising from scholarly collaborations among clinicians, teachers and researchers and papers providing resources to develop the community’s ability to conduct such collaborative research. The journal’s audience includes researchers and practitioners: researchers who wish to explore challenging questions of health professions education and clinical teachers who wish to both advance their practice and envision for themselves a collaborative role in scholarly educational innovation. This audience of researchers, clinicians and educators is both international and interdisciplinary. The journal has a long history. In 1982, the journal was founded by the Dutch Association for Medical Education, as a Dutch language journal (Netherlands Journal of Medical Education). As a Dutch journal it fuelled educational research and innovation in the Netherlands. It is one of the factors for the Dutch success in medical education. In 2012, it widened its scope, transforming into an international English language journal. The journal swiftly became international in all aspects: the readers, authors, reviewers and editorial board members. The editorial board members represent the different parental disciplines in the field of medical education, e.g. clinicians, social scientists, biomedical scientists, statisticians and linguists. Several of them are leading scholars. Three of the editors are in the top ten of most cited authors in the medical education field. Two editors were awarded the Karolinska Institute Prize for Research. Presently, Erik Driessen leads the journal as Editor in Chief. Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. It is sponsored by theThe Netherlands Association of Medical Education and offers free manuscript submission. Perspectives on Medical Education positions itself at the dynamic intersection of educational research and clinical education. While other journals in the health professional education domain orient predominantly to education researchers or to clinical educators, Perspectives positions itself at the collaborative interface between these perspectives. This unique positioning reflects the journal’s mission to support and enrich collaborative scholarship between education researchers and clinical educators, and to advance new knowledge regarding clinical education practices. Reflecting this mission, the journal both welcomes original research papers arising from scholarly collaborations among clinicians, teachers and researchers and papers providing resources to develop the community’s ability to conduct such collaborative research. The journal’s audience includes researchers and practitioners: researchers who wish to explore challenging questions of health professions education and clinical teachers who wish to both advance their practice and envision for themselves a collaborative role in scholarly educational innovation. This audience of researchers, clinicians and educators is both international and interdisciplinary. The journal has a long history. In 1982, the journal was founded by the Dutch Association for Medical Education, as a Dutch language journal (Netherlands Journal of Medical Education). As a Dutch journal it fuelled educational research and innovation in the Netherlands. It is one of the factors for the Dutch success in medical education. In 2012, it widened its scope, transforming into an international English language journal. The journal swiftly became international in all aspects: the readers, authors, reviewers and editorial board members. The editorial board members represent the different parental disciplines in the field of medical education, e.g. clinicians, social scientists, biomedical scientists, statisticians and linguists. Several of them are leading scholars. Three of the editors are in the top ten of most cited authors in the medical education field. Two editors were awarded the Karolinska Institute Prize for Research. Presently, Erik Driessen leads the journal as Editor in Chief. Perspectives on Medical Education is highly visible thanks to its unrestricted online access policy. It is sponsored by theThe Netherlands Association of Medical Education and offers free manuscript submission.
期刊最新文献
Implementing IPE in a Workplace Setting: Educational Design Research Promotes Transformative Participation. Seeing Ourselves in Others: Understanding and Addressing Biases in Medical School Admissions Processes. Could the R2C2 Feedback and Coaching Model Enhance Feedback Literacy Behaviors: A Qualitative Study Exploring Learner-Preceptor Feedback Conversations. Introducing the Next Era in Assessment. Breaking Bad News to Learners: How Well Does the SPIKES Clinical Model Translate?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1