How do residents respond to uncertainty with peers and supervisors in multidisciplinary teams? Insights from simulations with epistemic fidelity.

Background: Residents struggle to express clinical uncertainty, often exhibiting negative cognitive, behavioral, and emotional responses to uncertainty when engaging with patients or supervisors. However, the Integrative Model of Uncertainty Tolerance posits that individuals may have positive or negative responses to perceived uncertainty. Situational characteristics, such as interactions with other health professionals, can impact whether the response is positive or negative. The team context in which residents interact with resident peers and supervisors could represent varying situational characteristics that enable a spectrum of responses to uncertainty. Understanding the situational characteristics of multidisciplinary teams that allow residents to display positive responses to perceived uncertainty could inform strategies to foster positive responses to uncertainty in other contexts. We explored resident responses to perceived uncertainty in a simulated multidisciplinary team context.

Methods: A simulation-primed qualitative inquiry approach was used. Fourteen residents from Cardiology and Obstetrics and Gynecology participated in simulation scenarios involving pregnant patients with heart disease. We incorporated epistemic fidelity through the deliberate inclusion of ambiguity and complexity to prompt uncertainty. Audio recordings of debriefing sessions were analyzed using directed content analysis.

Results: Residents recognized that uncertainty is unavoidable, and positive responses to uncertainty are crucial to team dynamics and patient safety. While residents had positive responses to expressing uncertainty to peers, they had predominantly negative responses to expressing uncertainty to supervisors. Predominant negative response to supervisors related to judgement from supervisors, and impacts on perceived trustworthiness or independence. Although residents recognized expressing uncertainty to a supervisor could identify opportunities for learning and resolve their uncertainty, the negative responses overshadowed the positive responses. Residents highly valued instances in which supervisors were forthcoming about their own uncertainty.

Conclusions: Through participation in simulations with epistemic fidelity, residents reflected on how they perceive and respond to uncertainty in multidisciplinary teams. Our findings emphasize the role of situational characteristics, particularly peers and supervisors, in moderating responses to perceived uncertainty. The productive discussions around responses to uncertainty in debriefing sessions suggest further studies of multidisciplinary simulations could enhance our understanding of how uncertainty is expressed, and potentially be used as an instructional intervention to promote positive responses to uncertainty.