全科执业注册商的临床不确定性,并在咨询信息和援助寻求

P. Magin, G. Cooke, A. Tapley, S. Wearne, E. Holliday, Simon Morgan, Jean Ball, N. Spike, M. V. van Driel
{"title":"全科执业注册商的临床不确定性,并在咨询信息和援助寻求","authors":"P. Magin, G. Cooke, A. Tapley, S. Wearne, E. Holliday, Simon Morgan, Jean Ball, N. Spike, M. V. van Driel","doi":"10.33966/HEPJ.4.1.14765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To explore the association of Australian general practitioner (GP) registrars’ responses to uncertainty with their in-consultation information-, advice- and assistance-seeking.Design/methodology/approach: A cross-sectional analysis of data from the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) cohort study in four Australian states. In ReCEnT, GP registrars record details of 60 consecutive consultations, six-monthly, three times during training.Outcome factors in logistic regression models included whether the registrar sought in-consultation information or assistance from (i) their supervisor or (ii) an electronic or paper-based source. Independent variables were the four independent subscales of the Physicians’ Reaction to Uncertainty (PRU) instrument, as well as registrar, practice and consultation variables.Findings: 589 registrars contributed details of 70,412 consultations.On multivariable analysis, scores on the two ‘affective’ PRU subscales ‘anxiety regarding diagnosis/management’ (OR 1.03; 95% confidence intervals [CIs] [1.01, 1.05], p = 0.003) and ‘concern about a bad outcome’ (OR 1.03; 95% CIs [1.01, 1.06], p = 0.008) were significantly associated with seeking supervisor assistance. There was no association with ‘behavioural’ subscales ‘reluctance to disclose uncertainty to patients’ and ‘reluctance to disclose mistakes to physicians’.None of the PRU subscales were significantly associated with information-seeking from electronic or hard copy sources.Research implications: Further research is required to explore the role of uncertainty within registrar–supervisor interactions and to define the role of supervisors in registrars’ functional adaptation to clinical uncertainty (including how best to support and train supervisors in this role).Practical implications: GP registrars’ ‘affective’ responses to clinical uncertainty are associated with assistance-seeking from clinical supervisors. While in-consultation assistance-seeking may promote registrars’ tolerance of uncertainty, it may also contribute to supervisor workload.Originality/value: This is the first study to examine trainees’ levels of uncertainty and their seeking of information and assistance.Limitations: We have not investigated whether registrars’ seeking assistance resolved or attenuated, for the index problem, their anxiety or concern.","PeriodicalId":119792,"journal":{"name":"Health Education in Practice: Journal of Research for Professional Learning","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"General practice registrars’ clinical uncertainty, and in-consultation information- and assistance-seeking\",\"authors\":\"P. Magin, G. Cooke, A. Tapley, S. Wearne, E. Holliday, Simon Morgan, Jean Ball, N. Spike, M. V. van Driel\",\"doi\":\"10.33966/HEPJ.4.1.14765\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: To explore the association of Australian general practitioner (GP) registrars’ responses to uncertainty with their in-consultation information-, advice- and assistance-seeking.Design/methodology/approach: A cross-sectional analysis of data from the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) cohort study in four Australian states. In ReCEnT, GP registrars record details of 60 consecutive consultations, six-monthly, three times during training.Outcome factors in logistic regression models included whether the registrar sought in-consultation information or assistance from (i) their supervisor or (ii) an electronic or paper-based source. Independent variables were the four independent subscales of the Physicians’ Reaction to Uncertainty (PRU) instrument, as well as registrar, practice and consultation variables.Findings: 589 registrars contributed details of 70,412 consultations.On multivariable analysis, scores on the two ‘affective’ PRU subscales ‘anxiety regarding diagnosis/management’ (OR 1.03; 95% confidence intervals [CIs] [1.01, 1.05], p = 0.003) and ‘concern about a bad outcome’ (OR 1.03; 95% CIs [1.01, 1.06], p = 0.008) were significantly associated with seeking supervisor assistance. There was no association with ‘behavioural’ subscales ‘reluctance to disclose uncertainty to patients’ and ‘reluctance to disclose mistakes to physicians’.None of the PRU subscales were significantly associated with information-seeking from electronic or hard copy sources.Research implications: Further research is required to explore the role of uncertainty within registrar–supervisor interactions and to define the role of supervisors in registrars’ functional adaptation to clinical uncertainty (including how best to support and train supervisors in this role).Practical implications: GP registrars’ ‘affective’ responses to clinical uncertainty are associated with assistance-seeking from clinical supervisors. While in-consultation assistance-seeking may promote registrars’ tolerance of uncertainty, it may also contribute to supervisor workload.Originality/value: This is the first study to examine trainees’ levels of uncertainty and their seeking of information and assistance.Limitations: We have not investigated whether registrars’ seeking assistance resolved or attenuated, for the index problem, their anxiety or concern.\",\"PeriodicalId\":119792,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Education in Practice: Journal of Research for Professional Learning\",\"volume\":\"54 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Education in Practice: Journal of Research for Professional Learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33966/HEPJ.4.1.14765\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Education in Practice: Journal of Research for Professional Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33966/HEPJ.4.1.14765","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨澳大利亚全科医生(GP)注册商协会对咨询信息、建议和寻求帮助的不确定性的反应。设计/方法/方法:对澳大利亚四个州注册医师临床培训(近期)队列研究数据的横断面分析。最近,全科医生登记员记录了60个连续咨询的详细信息,六个月一次,培训期间三次。逻辑回归模型中的结果因素包括注册商是否从(i)其主管或(ii)电子或纸质来源寻求咨询信息或协助。自变量为医师不确定反应量表(PRU)的四个独立分量表,以及注册者、执业者和会诊者变量。调查结果:589家注册商提供了70,412次咨询的详细信息。在多变量分析中,两个“情感”PRU子量表“关于诊断/管理的焦虑”的得分(OR 1.03;95%置信区间[ci] [1.01, 1.05], p = 0.003)和“对不良结果的担忧”(OR 1.03;95% ci [1.01, 1.06], p = 0.008)与寻求主管协助显著相关。与“行为”子量表“不愿向患者透露不确定性”和“不愿向医生透露错误”没有关联。没有一个PRU分量表与从电子或硬拷贝来源获取信息有显著关联。研究意义:需要进一步的研究来探索不确定性在注册者-监管者互动中的作用,并定义监管者在注册者对临床不确定性的功能适应中的作用(包括如何最好地支持和培训这一角色的监管者)。实际意义:全科医生注册者对临床不确定性的“情感”反应与临床主管的寻求援助有关。虽然在咨询中寻求帮助可能会促进注册商对不确定性的容忍度,但它也可能会增加主管的工作量。原创性/价值:这是第一个研究受训者的不确定程度和他们寻求信息和帮助的研究。局限性:我们没有调查注册商寻求帮助是否解决或减轻了他们对索引问题的焦虑或担忧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
General practice registrars’ clinical uncertainty, and in-consultation information- and assistance-seeking
Purpose: To explore the association of Australian general practitioner (GP) registrars’ responses to uncertainty with their in-consultation information-, advice- and assistance-seeking.Design/methodology/approach: A cross-sectional analysis of data from the Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) cohort study in four Australian states. In ReCEnT, GP registrars record details of 60 consecutive consultations, six-monthly, three times during training.Outcome factors in logistic regression models included whether the registrar sought in-consultation information or assistance from (i) their supervisor or (ii) an electronic or paper-based source. Independent variables were the four independent subscales of the Physicians’ Reaction to Uncertainty (PRU) instrument, as well as registrar, practice and consultation variables.Findings: 589 registrars contributed details of 70,412 consultations.On multivariable analysis, scores on the two ‘affective’ PRU subscales ‘anxiety regarding diagnosis/management’ (OR 1.03; 95% confidence intervals [CIs] [1.01, 1.05], p = 0.003) and ‘concern about a bad outcome’ (OR 1.03; 95% CIs [1.01, 1.06], p = 0.008) were significantly associated with seeking supervisor assistance. There was no association with ‘behavioural’ subscales ‘reluctance to disclose uncertainty to patients’ and ‘reluctance to disclose mistakes to physicians’.None of the PRU subscales were significantly associated with information-seeking from electronic or hard copy sources.Research implications: Further research is required to explore the role of uncertainty within registrar–supervisor interactions and to define the role of supervisors in registrars’ functional adaptation to clinical uncertainty (including how best to support and train supervisors in this role).Practical implications: GP registrars’ ‘affective’ responses to clinical uncertainty are associated with assistance-seeking from clinical supervisors. While in-consultation assistance-seeking may promote registrars’ tolerance of uncertainty, it may also contribute to supervisor workload.Originality/value: This is the first study to examine trainees’ levels of uncertainty and their seeking of information and assistance.Limitations: We have not investigated whether registrars’ seeking assistance resolved or attenuated, for the index problem, their anxiety or concern.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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