Nurse perspectives on the assessment of emergency medicine residents: A qualitative study

IF 1.7 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Jake Valentine MD, MEd, Julianna Jung MD, MEd
{"title":"Nurse perspectives on the assessment of emergency medicine residents: A qualitative study","authors":"Jake Valentine MD, MEd,&nbsp;Julianna Jung MD, MEd","doi":"10.1002/aet2.11016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Multisource and 360-degree feedback are emerging methods in the medical education assessment literature. Nursing feedback in particular has been identified as a point of emphasis regarding what medical education leadership would most value for incorporating into their evaluations. There is no currently accepted tool for multisource feedback in the emergency department (ED). To answer this call, we conducted a qualitative study to elucidate nurse perspectives on evaluation of emergency medicine residents.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted individual semistructured interviews of ED nurses with experience working alongside residents via volunteer recruitment. Transcripts were coded independently by each author and then reviewed collaboratively to resolve differences. Codes were created by inductive thematic analysis and subsequently underwent constant comparison and classical content analysis. Recruitment continued until analysis of transcripts showed thematic saturation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We organized the interview transcript into chunks of information, arranging 407 quotes from the 10 interview transcripts into 17 codes and six themes regarding observable resident behaviors. Representative quotes and exemplar cases added detailed description to the meaning of these codes. The identified themes for observable resident behaviors included “general communication style,” “medical knowledge,” “efficiency,” “patient communication,” “nurse communication,” and “professionalism.” An additional 13 codes addressed the themes of barriers and catalysts for feedback.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The identified themes on observable resident behaviors aligned well with prior literature and with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Milestones. The interviews also highlighted nurse perspectives on barriers and catalysts for feedback that would be useful to incorporate into the design of an assessment tool.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":37032,"journal":{"name":"AEM Education and Training","volume":"8 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AEM Education and Training","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aet2.11016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Multisource and 360-degree feedback are emerging methods in the medical education assessment literature. Nursing feedback in particular has been identified as a point of emphasis regarding what medical education leadership would most value for incorporating into their evaluations. There is no currently accepted tool for multisource feedback in the emergency department (ED). To answer this call, we conducted a qualitative study to elucidate nurse perspectives on evaluation of emergency medicine residents.

Methods

We conducted individual semistructured interviews of ED nurses with experience working alongside residents via volunteer recruitment. Transcripts were coded independently by each author and then reviewed collaboratively to resolve differences. Codes were created by inductive thematic analysis and subsequently underwent constant comparison and classical content analysis. Recruitment continued until analysis of transcripts showed thematic saturation.

Results

We organized the interview transcript into chunks of information, arranging 407 quotes from the 10 interview transcripts into 17 codes and six themes regarding observable resident behaviors. Representative quotes and exemplar cases added detailed description to the meaning of these codes. The identified themes for observable resident behaviors included “general communication style,” “medical knowledge,” “efficiency,” “patient communication,” “nurse communication,” and “professionalism.” An additional 13 codes addressed the themes of barriers and catalysts for feedback.

Conclusions

The identified themes on observable resident behaviors aligned well with prior literature and with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Milestones. The interviews also highlighted nurse perspectives on barriers and catalysts for feedback that would be useful to incorporate into the design of an assessment tool.

护士对急诊科住院医生评估的看法:定性研究
背景多源反馈和 360 度反馈是医学教育评估文献中的新兴方法。护理人员的反馈意见尤其被认为是医学教育领导层在评估中最看重的一点。目前,急诊科(ED)还没有公认的多源反馈工具。为了响应这一号召,我们开展了一项定性研究,以阐明护士对急诊科住院医师评估的看法。 方法 我们通过志愿者招募,对有与住院医师共事经验的急诊科护士进行了个人半结构式访谈。访谈记录由每位作者独立编码,然后共同审阅以解决分歧。通过归纳主题分析创建代码,然后进行不断比较和经典内容分析。招募工作一直持续到对记录誊本的分析显示主题饱和为止。 结果 我们将访谈记录整理成信息块,将 10 份访谈记录中的 407 句引语归纳为 17 个代码和 6 个主题,这些代码和主题都与可观察到的住院医师行为有关。具有代表性的引语和示例案例对这些代码的含义进行了详细描述。已确定的住院医师可观察行为主题包括 "一般沟通风格"、"医学知识"、"效率"、"患者沟通"、"护士沟通 "和 "专业精神"。另有 13 个代码涉及反馈的障碍和催化剂主题。 结论 所确定的关于住院医师可观察行为的主题与之前的文献和毕业后医学教育认证委员会(ACGME)的里程碑非常吻合。访谈还强调了护士对反馈障碍和催化剂的看法,这些看法有助于将其纳入评估工具的设计中。
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
AEM Education and Training
AEM Education and Training Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
22.20%
发文量
89
×
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