Implementation, Reach, and Effectiveness of the Direct Observation of Residents in Clinic Program.

IF 0.9 Q3 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Education for Health Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-22 DOI:10.4103/efh.efh_90_23
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.

直接观察住院医师门诊计划的实施、影响和效果。
背景:直接观察非常重要,但住院医师很少被观察。我们在住院医师诊所实施并评估了一项直接观察计划,以增加观察和反馈的频率,改善对直接观察的看法:方法:2019 年 6 月至 2020 年 2 月期间,我们指派教师在住院医师诊所担任观察者。我们在计划前后对住院医师和教师进行了调查。教员们为每次观察填写了一份表格。我们对调查进行了分析,以研究障碍的变化、观察和反馈的频率和类型以及对观察的态度。分析样本分别包括住院医师调查前和调查后的 38 份和 37 份,以及教师调查前和调查后的 20 份和 25 份:住院医师调查回复率在干预前为 32.3%(40/124),干预后为 30.7%(39/127)。大多数住院医师(76%[干预前],86%[干预后],P = 0.258)表示至少在病史、检查、咨询或总结四个方面中的一个方面接受了观察。我们收到了 68% 符合条件的住院医师的观察跟踪表。项目结束后,观察病史采集的比例从 30% 提高到了 79%(P = 0.0010)。干预前和干预后,教员的调查回复率分别为 64.7%(22/34)和 67.5%(25/37)。干预后,报告时间(80%[干预前],52%[干预后],P = 0.051)和竞争需求(65%[干预前],52%[干预后],P = 0.380)成为障碍的教师人数减少。干预后认为观察是一种有价值的教学工具的教师人数较少(100%[干预前],79%[干预后],P = 0.0534)。所有不认为观察有价值的教师都是经验最少的:讨论:指派教师作为观察者可以增加观察,尤其是在历史教学中,尽管数据表明教师对观察的负面看法有所增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Education for Health
Education for Health EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信