Applying evidence-based medicine in general practice : a video-stimulated interview study on workplace-based observation

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) in general practice involves applying a complex combination of best-available evidence, the patient's preferences and the general practitioner's (GP) clinical expertise in decision-making. GPs and GP trainees learn how to apply EBM informally by observing each other's consultations, as well as through more deliberative forms of workplace-based learning. This study aims to gain insight into workplace-based EBM learning by investigating the extent to which GP supervisors and trainees recognise each other's EBM behaviour through observation, and by identifying aspects that influence their recognition. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative multicentre study based on video-stimulated recall interviews (VSI) of paired GP supervisors and GP trainees affiliated with GP training institutes in Belgium and the Netherlands. The GP pairs (n = 22) were shown fragments of their own and their partner's consultations and were asked to elucidate their own EBM considerations and the ones they recognised in their partner's actions. The interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed with NVivo. By comparing pairs who recognised each other's considerations well with those who did not, we developed a model describing the aspects that influence the observer's recognition of an actor's EBM behaviour. RESULTS: Overall, there was moderate similarity between an actor's EBM behaviour and the observer's recognition of it. Aspects that negatively influence recognition are often observer-related. Observers tend to be judgemental, give unsolicited comments on how they would act themselves and are more concerned with the trainee-supervisor relationship than objective observation. There was less recognition when actors used implicit reasoning, such as mindlines (internalised, collectively reinforced tacit guidelines). Pair-related aspects also played a role: previous discussion of a specific topic or EBM decision-making generally enhanced recognition. Consultation-specific aspects played only a marginal role. CONCLUSIONS: GP trainees and supervisors do not fully recognise EBM behaviour through observing each other's consultations. To improve recognition of EBM behaviour and thus benefit from informal observational learning, observers need to be aware of automatic judgements that they make. Creating explicit learning moments in which EBM decision-making is discussed, can improve shared knowledge and can also be useful to unveil tacit knowledge derived from mindlines

Ten papers for teachers of evidence-based medicine and health care: Sicily workshop 2019

A previous article sought to signpost papers that were considered helpful when starting on the journey of practicing evidence-based medicine (EBM). The lead author was invited to run a workshop at the Eighth Conference of the International Society for Evidence-Based Health Care run in collaboration with the Gruppo Italiano per la Medicina Basata sulle Evidenze from 6 November to 9 November 2019. The aim of the workshop was to challenge a group of teachers and educators to consider useful papers for the teaching of EBM/evidence-based healthcare (EBHC). The second aim was to start a database of such studies. The third aim was to share learning and foster discussion from the workshop through journal publication. EBM and EBHC are used interchangeably throughout this article

Facilitators and barriers to brokering between research and care by senior clinical-scientists in general practice and elderly care medicine

Background: Clinician-scientists (CSs) are physicians who work in daily care and have an academic role in research or education. They may act as knowledge brokers and help to connect research and clinical practice. There is no data available on CSs’ brokering activities and the perceived barriers and facilitators to optimising their role in general practice (GP) and elderly care medicine (EM). Aim: To identify the brokering activities of CSs in these fields and the barriers and facilitators they come across whilst sharing knowledge and connecting people in research and frontline health care. Design and setting: Qualitative interview study among 17 Dutch senior CSs. Method: Interview data were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematic interpretative analysis was used to identify themes. Results: CSs facilitate collaboration between researchers and practitioners. They exchange knowledge on both sides, make use of extensive networks and constantly and actively involve care in research and research in care. CSs come across barriers as well as facilitators that influence their brokering activities. Some barriers and facilitators are at the individual level, other are related more to the job context and workplace. Conclusions: This study reveals barriers to overcome and facilitators to develop related to the brokering role of CSs. To make the best use of CSs, brokering activities and the added value of CSs should be recognised and supported. Awareness of what CSs need to function effectively in demanding work settings could be important for the future impact of the role on the fields of GP and EM

Facilitators and barriers to brokering between research and care by senior clinical-scientists in general practice and elderly care medicine

Background: Clinician-scientists (CSs) are physicians who work in daily care and have an academic role in research or education. They may act as knowledge brokers and help to connect research and clinical practice. There is no data available on CSs’ brokering activities and the perceived barriers and facilitators to optimising their role in general practice (GP) and elderly care medicine (EM). Aim: To identify the brokering activities of CSs in these fields and the barriers and facilitators they come across whilst sharing knowledge and connecting people in research and frontline health care. Design and setting: Qualitative interview study among 17 Dutch senior CSs. Method: Interview data were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematic interpretative analysis was used to identify themes. Results: CSs facilitate collaboration between researchers and practitioners. They exchange knowledge on both sides, make use of extensive networks and constantly and actively involve care in research and research in care. CSs come across barriers as well as facilitators that influence their brokering activities. Some barriers and facilitators are at the individual level, other are related more to the job context and workplace. Conclusions: This study reveals barriers to overcome and facilitators to develop related to the brokering role of CSs. To make the best use of CSs, brokering activities and the added value of CSs should be recognised and supported. Awareness of what CSs need to function effectively in demanding work settings could be important for the future impact of the role on the fields of GP and EM

Facilitators and barriers to brokering between research and care by senior clinical-scientists in general practice and elderly care medicine

Background: Clinician-scientists (CSs) are physicians who work in daily care and have an academic role in research or education. They may act as knowledge brokers and help to connect research and clinical practice. There is no data available on CSs’ brokering activities and the perceived barriers and facilitators to optimising their role in general practice (GP) and elderly care medicine (EM). Aim: To identify the brokering activities of CSs in these fields and the barriers and facilitators they come across whilst sharing knowledge and connecting people in research and frontline health care. Design and setting: Qualitative interview study among 17 Dutch senior CSs. Method: Interview data were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematic interpretative analysis was used to identify themes. Results: CSs facilitate collaboration between researchers and practitioners. They exchange knowledge on both sides, make use of extensive networks and constantly and actively involve care in research and research in care. CSs come across barriers as well as facilitators that influence their brokering activities. Some barriers and facilitators are at the individual level, other are related more to the job context and workplace. Conclusions: This study reveals barriers to overcome and facilitators to develop related to the brokering role of CSs. To make the best use of CSs, brokering activities and the added value of CSs should be recognised and supported. Awareness of what CSs need to function effectively in demanding work settings could be important for the future impact of the role on the fields of GP and EM

Questions and answers on diagnosis and management of patients with Peripheral Arterial Diseases:A companion document of the 2017 ESC Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Diseases, in collaboration with the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS)

International audienc