Learning Together From Uncertainty: An Evaluation of Practice Inquiry Groups in a Nationwide Primary Care Practice.

IF 1.6 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Gurpreet Dhaliwal, John Penner, Meg Scott, Lucia S Sommers
{"title":"Learning Together From Uncertainty: An Evaluation of Practice Inquiry Groups in a Nationwide Primary Care Practice.","authors":"Gurpreet Dhaliwal, John Penner, Meg Scott, Lucia S Sommers","doi":"10.1097/CEH.0000000000000610","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Practice inquiry (PI) is a structured method of discussion that helps primary care clinicians explore uncertainty and learn from challenging cases. An understanding of what aspect of PI primary care clinicians value could guide leaders who are contemplating implementation of collaborative discussion formats in their clinical systems. We administered a survey examining clinicians' perceptions of PI in a large nationwide membership-based primary care service. Two hundred ninety-six surveys (61%, N = 296/482) were received from participants and 69 surveys (75%, N = 69/92) were received from facilitators. Most respondents (>70% across five queries) felt that PI led to enhancement of knowledge and management skills and helped them become more comfortable managing uncertainty. Colleagues in PI groups provided validation and reassurance, valuable health system information, and insights into reasoning and patient-clinician relationships. Participants and facilitators outlined ways PI sessions could be improved (eg, case follow-up) and how the organization could support PI sessions (eg, enhanced facilitator training). This is the first program evaluation of PI in a large, community primary care setting. Future directions include examining what group-level characteristics mediate PI efficacy and how clinicians and patients fare after PI discussions. Such insights could inform enhancements to the group facilitation process.</p>","PeriodicalId":50218,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000610","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","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

Practice inquiry (PI) is a structured method of discussion that helps primary care clinicians explore uncertainty and learn from challenging cases. An understanding of what aspect of PI primary care clinicians value could guide leaders who are contemplating implementation of collaborative discussion formats in their clinical systems. We administered a survey examining clinicians' perceptions of PI in a large nationwide membership-based primary care service. Two hundred ninety-six surveys (61%, N = 296/482) were received from participants and 69 surveys (75%, N = 69/92) were received from facilitators. Most respondents (>70% across five queries) felt that PI led to enhancement of knowledge and management skills and helped them become more comfortable managing uncertainty. Colleagues in PI groups provided validation and reassurance, valuable health system information, and insights into reasoning and patient-clinician relationships. Participants and facilitators outlined ways PI sessions could be improved (eg, case follow-up) and how the organization could support PI sessions (eg, enhanced facilitator training). This is the first program evaluation of PI in a large, community primary care setting. Future directions include examining what group-level characteristics mediate PI efficacy and how clinicians and patients fare after PI discussions. Such insights could inform enhancements to the group facilitation process.

从不确定性中共同学习:对全国初级保健实践中实践调查小组的评估。
实践探究(PI)是一种结构化的讨论方法,帮助初级保健临床医生探索不确定性并从具有挑战性的病例中学习。了解初级保健临床医生重视PI的哪些方面可以指导正在考虑在其临床系统中实施协作讨论格式的领导者。我们进行了一项调查,检查临床医生对一个大型全国性会员制初级保健服务中PI的看法。参与者共收到问卷调查226份(61%,N = 296/482),主持人共收到问卷调查69份(75%,N = 69/92)。大多数受访者(5个问题中有70%的受访者)认为,PI可以提高知识和管理技能,并帮助他们更自如地管理不确定性。PI小组的同事提供了验证和保证,有价值的卫生系统信息,以及对推理和医患关系的见解。参与者和引导者概述了改进PI会议的方法(例如,案例跟踪)以及组织如何支持PI会议(例如,加强引导者培训)。这是在一个大的社区初级保健设置的PI的第一个项目评估。未来的方向包括研究群体水平特征介导PI疗效,以及临床医生和患者在PI讨论后的表现。这样的见解可以为团队促进过程的改进提供信息。
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
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
85
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Continuing Education is a quarterly journal publishing articles relevant to theory, practice, and policy development for continuing education in the health sciences. The journal presents original research and essays on subjects involving the lifelong learning of professionals, with a focus on continuous quality improvement, competency assessment, and knowledge translation. It provides thoughtful advice to those who develop, conduct, and evaluate continuing education programs.
×
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