Janet Lefroy, Jessica Bialan, Alice Moult, Fiona Hay, Claire Stapleton, Jessica Thompson, Kate Diggory, Nageen Mustafa, Julia Farrington, Sarah A. Aynsley, Simon Jacklin, Adam Winterton, Natalie Cope
{"title":"培训医疗保健专业人员,使其在社会疏离时代做好实践准备:现实主义评估","authors":"Janet Lefroy, Jessica Bialan, Alice Moult, Fiona Hay, Claire Stapleton, Jessica Thompson, Kate Diggory, Nageen Mustafa, Julia Farrington, Sarah A. Aynsley, Simon Jacklin, Adam Winterton, Natalie Cope","doi":"10.1007/s10459-023-10297-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Programme changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted variably on preparation for practice of healthcare professional students. Explanations for such variability need exploration. The aim of our study was to understand what clinical learning, whilst under socially distanced restrictions, worked and why (or why not).</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a realist evaluation of the undergraduate healthcare programmes at one UK university in 2020–21. Initial programme theories to be tested in this study were derived from discussions with programme leads about the changes they implemented due to the pandemic. Study participants were students and teaching faculty. Online interview transcripts were coded, identifying why interventions had worked or not. This resulted in a set of ‘context-mechanism-outcome’ (CMO) statements about each intervention. The initial programme theories were refined as a result.</p><h3>Results and discussion</h3><p>29 students and 22 faculty members participated. 18 CMO configurations were identified relating to clinical skills learning and 25 relating to clinical placements. Clinical skills learning was successful whether in person, remote or hybrid if it followed the steps of: demonstration—explanation—mental rehearsal—attempt with feedback. Where it didn’t work there was usually a lack of observation and corrective feedback. Placements were generally highly valued despite some deficiencies in student experience. Being useful on placements was felt to be good preparation for practice. If student numbers are to expand, findings about what works in distance learning of clinical skills and the value of various modes of induction to clinical workplace activity may also be relevant post-pandemic.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50959,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","volume":"29 4","pages":"1265 - 1284"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10459-023-10297-w.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Training healthcare professionals to be ready for practice in an era of social distancing: a realist evaluation\",\"authors\":\"Janet Lefroy, Jessica Bialan, Alice Moult, Fiona Hay, Claire Stapleton, Jessica Thompson, Kate Diggory, Nageen Mustafa, Julia Farrington, Sarah A. Aynsley, Simon Jacklin, Adam Winterton, Natalie Cope\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10459-023-10297-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Programme changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted variably on preparation for practice of healthcare professional students. Explanations for such variability need exploration. The aim of our study was to understand what clinical learning, whilst under socially distanced restrictions, worked and why (or why not).</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a realist evaluation of the undergraduate healthcare programmes at one UK university in 2020–21. Initial programme theories to be tested in this study were derived from discussions with programme leads about the changes they implemented due to the pandemic. Study participants were students and teaching faculty. Online interview transcripts were coded, identifying why interventions had worked or not. This resulted in a set of ‘context-mechanism-outcome’ (CMO) statements about each intervention. The initial programme theories were refined as a result.</p><h3>Results and discussion</h3><p>29 students and 22 faculty members participated. 18 CMO configurations were identified relating to clinical skills learning and 25 relating to clinical placements. Clinical skills learning was successful whether in person, remote or hybrid if it followed the steps of: demonstration—explanation—mental rehearsal—attempt with feedback. Where it didn’t work there was usually a lack of observation and corrective feedback. Placements were generally highly valued despite some deficiencies in student experience. Being useful on placements was felt to be good preparation for practice. If student numbers are to expand, findings about what works in distance learning of clinical skills and the value of various modes of induction to clinical workplace activity may also be relevant post-pandemic.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50959,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Health Sciences Education\",\"volume\":\"29 4\",\"pages\":\"1265 - 1284\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10459-023-10297-w.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Health Sciences Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10459-023-10297-w\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Health Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10459-023-10297-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Training healthcare professionals to be ready for practice in an era of social distancing: a realist evaluation
Background
Programme changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic have impacted variably on preparation for practice of healthcare professional students. Explanations for such variability need exploration. The aim of our study was to understand what clinical learning, whilst under socially distanced restrictions, worked and why (or why not).
Methods
We conducted a realist evaluation of the undergraduate healthcare programmes at one UK university in 2020–21. Initial programme theories to be tested in this study were derived from discussions with programme leads about the changes they implemented due to the pandemic. Study participants were students and teaching faculty. Online interview transcripts were coded, identifying why interventions had worked or not. This resulted in a set of ‘context-mechanism-outcome’ (CMO) statements about each intervention. The initial programme theories were refined as a result.
Results and discussion
29 students and 22 faculty members participated. 18 CMO configurations were identified relating to clinical skills learning and 25 relating to clinical placements. Clinical skills learning was successful whether in person, remote or hybrid if it followed the steps of: demonstration—explanation—mental rehearsal—attempt with feedback. Where it didn’t work there was usually a lack of observation and corrective feedback. Placements were generally highly valued despite some deficiencies in student experience. Being useful on placements was felt to be good preparation for practice. If student numbers are to expand, findings about what works in distance learning of clinical skills and the value of various modes of induction to clinical workplace activity may also be relevant post-pandemic.
期刊介绍:
Advances in Health Sciences Education is a forum for scholarly and state-of-the art research into all aspects of health sciences education. It will publish empirical studies as well as discussions of theoretical issues and practical implications. The primary focus of the Journal is linking theory to practice, thus priority will be given to papers that have a sound theoretical basis and strong methodology.