Ambulatory teaching: Do approaches to learning predict the site and preceptor characteristics valued by clerks and residents in the ambulatory setting?

BACKGROUND: In a study to determine the site and preceptor characteristics most valued by clerks and residents in the ambulatory setting we wished to confirm whether these would support effective learning. The deep approach to learning is thought to be more effective for learning than surface approaches. In this study we determined how the approaches to learning of clerks and residents predicted the valued site and preceptor characteristics in the ambulatory setting. METHODS: Postal survey of all medical residents and clerks in training in Ontario determining the site and preceptor characteristics most valued in the ambulatory setting. Participants also completed the Workplace Learning questionnaire that includes 3 approaches to learning scales and 3 workplace climate scales. Multiple regression analysis was used to predict the preferred site and preceptor characteristics as the dependent variables by the average scores of the approaches to learning and perception of workplace climate scales as the independent variables. RESULTS: There were 1642 respondents, yielding a 47.3% response rate. Factor analysis revealed 7 preceptor characteristics and 6 site characteristics valued in the ambulatory setting. The Deep approach to learning scale predicted all of the learners' preferred preceptor characteristics (β = 0.076 to β = 0.234, p < .001). Valuing preceptor Direction was more strongly associated with the Surface Rational approach (β = .252, p < .001) and with the Surface Disorganized approach to learning (β = .154, p < 001) than with the Deep approach. The Deep approach to learning scale predicted valued site characteristics of Office Management, Patient Logistics, Objectives and Preceptor Interaction (p < .001). The Surface Rational approach to learning predicted valuing Learning Resources and Clinic Set-up (β = .09, p = .001; β = .197, p < .001). The Surface Disorganized approach to learning weakly negatively predicted Patient Logistics (β = -.082, p = .003) and positively the Learning Resources (β = .088, p = .003). Climate factors were not strongly predictive for any studied characteristics. Role Modeling and Patient Logistics were predicted by Supportive Receptive climate (β = .135, p < .001, β = .118, p < .001). CONCLUSION: Most site and preceptor characteristics valued by clerks and residents were predicted by their Deep approach to learning scores. Some characteristics reflecting the need for good organization and clear direction are predicted by learners' scores on less effective approaches to learning

Pragmatic controlled clinical trials in primary care: the struggle between external and internal validity

BACKGROUND: Controlled clinical trials of health care interventions are either explanatory or pragmatic. Explanatory trials test whether an intervention is efficacious; that is, whether it can have a beneficial effect in an ideal situation. Pragmatic trials measure effectiveness; they measure the degree of beneficial effect in real clinical practice. In pragmatic trials, a balance between external validity (generalizability of the results) and internal validity (reliability or accuracy of the results) needs to be achieved. The explanatory trial seeks to maximize the internal validity by assuring rigorous control of all variables other than the intervention. The pragmatic trial seeks to maximize external validity to ensure that the results can be generalized. However the danger of pragmatic trials is that internal validity may be overly compromised in the effort to ensure generalizability. We are conducting two pragmatic randomized controlled trials on interventions in the management of hypertension in primary care. We describe the design of the trials and the steps taken to deal with the competing demands of external and internal validity. DISCUSSION: External validity is maximized by having few exclusion criteria and by allowing flexibility in the interpretation of the intervention and in management decisions. Internal validity is maximized by decreasing contamination bias through cluster randomization, and decreasing observer and assessment bias, in these non-blinded trials, through baseline data collection prior to randomization, automating the outcomes assessment with 24 hour ambulatory blood pressure monitors, and blinding the data analysis. SUMMARY: Clinical trials conducted in community practices present investigators with difficult methodological choices related to maintaining a balance between internal validity (reliability of the results) and external validity (generalizability). The attempt to achieve methodological purity can result in clinically meaningless results, while attempting to achieve full generalizability can result in invalid and unreliable results. Achieving a creative tension between the two is crucial

Milestones of critical thinking: a developmental model for medicine and nursing

Critical thinking is essential to a health professional\u27s competence to assess, diagnose, and care for patients. Defined as the ability to apply higher-order cognitive skills (conceptualization, analysis, evaluation) and the disposition to be deliberate about thinking (being open-minded or intellectually honest) that lead to action that is logical and appropriate, critical thinking represents a meta-competency that transcends other knowledge, skills, abilities, and behaviors required in health care professions. Despite its importance, the developmental stages of critical thinking have not been delineated for nurses and physicians. As part of a task force of educators who considered different developmental stage theories, the authors have iteratively refined and proposed milestones in critical thinking. The attributes associated with unreflective, beginning, practicing, advanced, accomplished, and challenged critical thinkers are conceived as independent of an individual\u27s level of training. Depending on circumstances and environmental factors, even the most experienced clinician may demonstrate attributes associated with a challenged thinker. The authors use the illustrative case of a patient with abdominal pain to demonstrate how critical thinking may manifest in learners at different stages of development, analyzing how the learner at each stage applies information obtained in the patient interaction to arrive at a differential diagnosis and plan for evaluation. The authors share important considerations and provide this work as a foundation for the development of effective approaches to teaching and promoting critical thinking and to establishing expectations for learners in this essential meta-competency

Randomised equivalence trial comparing three month and six month follow up of patients with hypertension by family practitioners

Objective To compare blood pressure control, satisfaction, and adherence to drug treatment in patients with treated hypertension followed up by their family physicians either every three months or every six months for three years. Design Randomised equivalence clinical trial. Settings 50 family practices in south eastern Ontario, Canada. Participants 609 patients aged 30-74 years with essential hypertension receiving drug treatment whose hypertension had been controlled for at least three months before entry into the study. Results 302 patients were randomly assigned to follow up every three months and 307 to follow up every six months. Baseline variables in the two groups were similar. As expected, patients in the six month group had significantly fewer visits, but patients in both groups visited their doctor more frequently than their assigned interval. Mean blood pressure was similar in the groups, as was control of hypertension. Patient satisfaction and adherence to treatment were similar in the groups. About 20% of patients in each group had blood pressures that were out of control during the study. Conclusions Follow up of patients with treated essential hypertension every six months is equivalent to follow up every three months. Patient satisfaction and adherence to treatment are the same for these follow up intervals. As about 20% of patients' hypertension was out of control at any time during the study in both groups, the frequency of follow up may not the most important factor in the control of patients' hypertension by family practitioners