Unraveling the medical residency selection game

The diversity of modern society is often not represented in the medical workforce. This might be partly due to selection practices. We need to better understand decision-making processes by selection committees in order to improve selection procedures with regard to diversity. This paper reports on a qualitative study with a socio-constructivist perspective conducted in 2015 that explored how residency selection decision-making occurred within four specialties in two regions in the Netherlands. Data included transcripts of the decision-making meetings and of one-on-one interviews with committee members before and after the group decision-making meetings. Candidates struggled to portray themselves favorably as they had to balance playing by the rules and being authentic; between fitting in and standing out. Although admissions committees had a welcoming stance to diversity, their practices were unintentionally preventing them from hiring underrepresented minority (URM) candidates. While negotiating admissions is difficult for all candidates, it is presumably even more complicated for URM candidates. This seems to be having a negative influence on attaining workforce diversity. Current beliefs, which make committees mistakenly feel they are acting fairly, might actually justify biased practices. Awareness of the role of committee members in these processes is an essential first step

Self-entrustment: how trainees' self-regulated learning supports participation in the workplace

Clinical workplaces offer postgraduate trainees a wealth of opportunities to learn from experience. To promote deliberate and meaningful learning self-regulated learning skills are foundational. We explored trainees’ learning activities related to patient encounters to better understand what aspects of self-regulated learning contribute to trainees’ development, and to explore supervisor’s role herein. We conducted a qualitative non-participant observational study in seven general practices. During two days we observed trainee’s patient encounters, daily debriefing sessions and educational meetings between trainee and supervisor and interviewed them separately afterwards. Data collection and analysis were iterative and inspired by a phenomenological approach. To organise data we used networks, time-ordered matrices and codebooks. Self-regulated learning supported trainees to increasingly perform independently. They engaged in self-regulated learning before, during and after encounters. Trainees’ activities depended on the type of medical problem presented and on patient, trainee and supervisor characteristics. Trainees used their sense of confidence to decide if they could manage the encounter alone or if they should consult their supervisor. They deliberately used feedback on their performance and engaged in reflection. Supervisors appeared vital in trainees’ learning by reassuring trainees, discussing experience, knowledge and professional issues, identifying possible unawareness of incompetence, assessing performance and securing patient safety. Self-confidence, reflection and feedback, and support from the supervisor are important aspects of self-regulated learning in practice. The results reflect how self-regulated learning and self-entrustment promote trainees’ increased participation in the workplace. Securing organized moments of interaction with supervisors is beneficial to trainees’ self-regulated learning

Judging residents' performance:a qualitative study using grounded theory

BACKGROUND: Although program directors judge residents' performance for summative decisions, little is known about how they do this. This study examined what information program directors use and how they value this information in making a judgment of residents' performance and what residents think of this process. METHODS: Sixteen semi-structured interviews were held with residents and program directors from different hospitals in the Netherlands in 2015-2016. Participants were recruited from internal medicine, surgery and radiology. Transcripts were analysed using grounded theory methodology. Concepts and themes were identified by iterative constant comparison. RESULTS: When approaching semi-annual meetings with residents, program directors report primarily gathering information from the following: assessment tools, faculty members and from their own experience with residents. They put more value on faculty's comments during meetings and in the corridors than on feedback provided in the assessment tools. They are influenced by their own beliefs about learning and education in valuing feedback. Residents are aware that faculty members discuss their performance in meetings, but they believe the assessment tools provide the most important proof to demonstrate their clinical competency. CONCLUSIONS: Residents think that feedback in the assessment tools is the most important proof to demonstrate their performance, whereas program directors scarcely use this feedback to form a judgment about residents' performance. They rely heavily on remarks of faculty in meetings instead. Therefore, residents' performance may be better judged in group meetings that are organised to enhance optimal information sharing and decision making about residents' performance

Assessing the Quality of Clinical Teachers: A Systematic Review of Content and Quality of Questionnaires for Assessing Clinical Teachers

BACKGROUND: Learning in a clinical environment differs from formal educational settings and provides specific challenges for clinicians who are teachers. Instruments that reflect these challenges are needed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of clinical teachers. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the content, validity, and aims of questionnaires used to assess clinical teachers. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and ERIC from 1976 up to March 2010. REVIEW METHODS: The searches revealed 54 papers on 32 instruments. Data from these papers were documented by independent researchers, using a structured format that included content of the instrument, validation methods, aims of the instrument, and its setting. Results : Aspects covered by the instruments predominantly concerned the use of teaching strategies (included in 30 instruments), supporter role (29), role modeling (27), and feedback (26). Providing opportunities for clinical learning activities was included in 13 instruments. Most studies referred to literature on good clinical teaching, although they failed to provide a clear description of what constitutes a good clinical teacher. Instrument length varied from 1 to 58 items. Except for two instruments, all had to be completed by clerks/residents. Instruments served to provide formative feedback ( instruments) but were also used for resource allocation, promotion, and annual performance review (14 instruments). All but two studies reported on internal consistency and/or reliability; other aspects of validity were examined less frequently. CONCLUSIONS: No instrument covered all relevant aspects of clinical teaching comprehensively. Validation of the instruments was often limited to assessment of internal consistency and reliability. Available instruments for assessing clinical teachers should be used carefully, especially for consequential decisions. There is a need for more valid comprehensive instruments

How Entrustment Is Informed by Holistic Judgments Across Time in a Family Medicine Residency Program: An Ethnographic Nonparticipant Observational Study

PURPOSE: Entrustment has mainly been conceptualized as delegating discrete professional tasks. Because residents provide most of their patient care independently, not all resident performance is visible to supervisors; the entrustment process involves more than granting discrete tasks. This study explored how supervisors made entrustment decisions based on residents’ performance in a long-term family medicine training program. METHOD: A qualitative nonparticipant observational study was conducted in 2014–2015 at competency-based family medicine residency programs in the Netherlands. Seven supervisor–resident pairs participated. During two days, one researcher observed first-year residents’ patient encounters, debriefing sessions, and supervisor-resident educational meetings and interviewed them separately afterwards. Data were collected and analyzed using iterative, phenomenological inductive research methodology. RESULTS: The entrustment process developed over three phases. Supervisors based their initial entrustment on prior knowledge about the resident. In the ensuing two weeks, entrustment decisions regarding independent patient care were derived from residents’ observed general competencies necessary for a range of health problems (clinical reasoning, decision making, relating to patients); medical knowledge and skills; and supervisors’ intuition. Supervisors provided supervision during and after encounters. Once residents performed independently, supervisors kept reevaluating their decisions, informed by residents’ overall growth in competencies rather than by adhering to a predefined set of tasks. CONCLUSIONS: Supervisors in family medicine residency training took a holistic approach to trust, based on general competencies, knowledge, skills, and intuition. Entrustment started before training and developed over time. Building trust is a mutual process between supervisor and resident, requiring a good working relationship

Using conversation analysis to explore feedback on resident performance

Feedback on clinical performance of residents is seen as a fundamental element in postgraduate medical education. Although literature on feedback in medical education is abundant, many supervisors struggle with providing this feedback and residents experience feedback as insufficiently constructive. With a detailed analysis of real-world feedback conversations, this study aims to contribute to the current literature by deepening the understanding of how feedback on residents' performance is provided, and to formulate recommendations for improvement of feedback practice. Eight evaluation meetings between program directors and residents were recorded in 2015-2016. These meetings were analyzed using conversation analysis. This is an ethno-methodological approach that uses a data-driven, iterative procedure to uncover interactional patterns that structure naturally occurring, spoken interaction. Feedback in our data took two forms: feedback as a unidirectional activity and feedback as a dialogic activity. The unidirectional feedback activities prevailed over the dialogic activities. The two different formats elicit different types of resident responses and have different implications for the progress of the interaction. Both feedback formats concerned positive as well as negative feedback and both were often mitigated by the participants. Unidirectional feedback and mitigating or downplaying feedback is at odds with the aim of feedback in medical education. Dialogic feedback avoids the pitfall of a program director-dominated conversation and gives residents the opportunity to take ownership of their strengths and weaknesses, which increases chances to change resident behavior. On the basis of linguistic analysis of our real-life data we suggest implications for feedback conversations