Implementing recommendations to optimise professional support in the medical workplace: A participatory approach.

IF 5.2 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
E Reynolds, H Lloyd, J Cleland, G Wong, L Withers, T Price, T Gale, N Brennan
{"title":"Implementing recommendations to optimise professional support in the medical workplace: A participatory approach.","authors":"E Reynolds, H Lloyd, J Cleland, G Wong, L Withers, T Price, T Gale, N Brennan","doi":"10.1111/medu.70054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The professional support (including remediation) of practising doctors has not been widely researched, and there have been no studies to date that have implemented evidence-based recommendations about support and remediation in the medical workplace. Our goal was to bridge the gap between research and practice in respect of optimising the delivery of professional support programmes for doctors in their workplace.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a participatory-action research (PAR) approach to implement recommendations from a previous study, RESTORE 1, in five UK sites: two hospitals, two professional support units and a professional support body. Informed by observations and interviews, we conducted a series of workshops (12 in total, with 35 relevant stakeholders [doctors, professional support leads, coaches etc.]). These were recorded and transcribed for analysis. Analysis was deductive, using the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHs) framework, the core constructs of which are innovation, recipient, context and facilitation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Important aspects of innovation related to the perspective, language and tone of the recommendations and the finding that recipients often valued other types of evidence rather than research. In terms of the recipients, sites' motivation for engagement in the study was crucial. We identified a variety of enabling/constraining contextual factors including resources, type and role of organisation and responsibilities of the professional support programme, as well as macro-level changes. The extent to which participants adopted the recommendations (facilitation) was limited.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The successful implementation of research into practice is challenging. However, new learning, shifts in relationships and increased awareness are equally valuable outcomes. 'On-the-ground' change takes time, depending on trust, relationships, partnership working and understanding context. Unfortunately, this does not align well with research systems that privilege studies with measurable outcomes produced within a set timeframe. We call for more discussion in medical education about the process of implementing research findings into practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":18370,"journal":{"name":"Medical Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.70054","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The professional support (including remediation) of practising doctors has not been widely researched, and there have been no studies to date that have implemented evidence-based recommendations about support and remediation in the medical workplace. Our goal was to bridge the gap between research and practice in respect of optimising the delivery of professional support programmes for doctors in their workplace.

Methods: We used a participatory-action research (PAR) approach to implement recommendations from a previous study, RESTORE 1, in five UK sites: two hospitals, two professional support units and a professional support body. Informed by observations and interviews, we conducted a series of workshops (12 in total, with 35 relevant stakeholders [doctors, professional support leads, coaches etc.]). These were recorded and transcribed for analysis. Analysis was deductive, using the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHs) framework, the core constructs of which are innovation, recipient, context and facilitation.

Results: Important aspects of innovation related to the perspective, language and tone of the recommendations and the finding that recipients often valued other types of evidence rather than research. In terms of the recipients, sites' motivation for engagement in the study was crucial. We identified a variety of enabling/constraining contextual factors including resources, type and role of organisation and responsibilities of the professional support programme, as well as macro-level changes. The extent to which participants adopted the recommendations (facilitation) was limited.

Discussion: The successful implementation of research into practice is challenging. However, new learning, shifts in relationships and increased awareness are equally valuable outcomes. 'On-the-ground' change takes time, depending on trust, relationships, partnership working and understanding context. Unfortunately, this does not align well with research systems that privilege studies with measurable outcomes produced within a set timeframe. We call for more discussion in medical education about the process of implementing research findings into practice.

实施优化医疗工作场所专业支持的建议:参与式做法。
导言:执业医生的专业支持(包括补救)尚未得到广泛研究,迄今为止还没有研究实施了关于医疗工作场所支持和补救的循证建议。我们的目标是弥合研究与实践之间的差距,以优化医生在工作场所提供的专业支持计划。方法:我们采用参与性行动研究(PAR)方法,在英国五个地点(两家医院、两个专业支持单位和一个专业支持机构)实施先前研究RESTORE 1的建议。通过观察和访谈,我们举办了一系列研讨会(共12次,涉及35名相关利益相关者[医生、专业支持主管、教练等])。记录并转录以供分析。分析是演绎的,使用卫生服务研究实施促进行动(i- parhis)框架,其核心结构是创新、接受者、背景和便利。结果:创新的重要方面与建议的观点、语言和语气有关,并发现接受者往往更看重其他类型的证据而不是研究。就接受者而言,网站参与研究的动机是至关重要的。我们确定了各种有利/制约的环境因素,包括资源、组织的类型和角色、专业支持计划的责任,以及宏观层面的变化。与会者采纳建议(促进)的程度是有限的。讨论:将研究成果成功地应用于实践是具有挑战性的。然而,新的学习、关系的转变和意识的提高同样是有价值的结果。“实地”改变需要时间,这取决于信任、关系、伙伴关系、工作和对环境的理解。不幸的是,这与那些在规定时间内产生可衡量结果的研究体系并不一致。我们呼吁在医学教育中更多地讨论将研究成果付诸实践的过程。
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
Medical Education
Medical Education 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
279
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Education seeks to be the pre-eminent journal in the field of education for health care professionals, and publishes material of the highest quality, reflecting world wide or provocative issues and perspectives. The journal welcomes high quality papers on all aspects of health professional education including; -undergraduate education -postgraduate training -continuing professional development -interprofessional education
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信