GP trainees’ perceptions on learning EBM using conversations in the workplace : a video-stimulated interview study

Background To be able to practice evidence-based medicine (EBM) when making decisions for individual patients, it is important to learn how to combine the best available evidence with the patient's preferences and the physician's clinical expertise. In general practice training, these skills can be learned at the workplace using learning conversations: meetings between the supervising general practitioner (GP) and GP trainee to discuss medical practice, selected topics or professional performance. This study aimed to give insight into the perceptions of GP trainees on their EBM learning processes during learning conversations. Methods We held semi-structured video-stimulated elicitation interviews (n = 22) with GP trainees affiliated to GP training institutes in the Netherlands and Belgium. GP trainees were shown fragments of their learning conversations, enabling reflection during the interview. Taking an inductive approach, interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed with NVivo software. Results GP trainees perceived learning conversations as useful for learning and discussing EBM. Multiple EBM learning activities were identified, such as discussing evidence together, relating evidence to cases in daily practice and discussing the supervisor's experience and the specific local context in the light of what the evidence recommends. However, for learning to occur, trainees need and expect specific behaviour, both from their supervisors and themselves. Supervisors should supply well-substantiated answers that are applicable in practice and give the trainee confirmation. In turn, the trainee needs to prepare well in order to ask focused, in-depth questions. A safe space allowing equal and open discussion between trainee and supervisor is perceived as an essential context for optimal EBM learning. Conclusions Our findings show that trainees find learning conversations useful for EBM learning in general practice. To bring EBM learning to its full potential, attention should be paid to optimising the behavioural and contextual factors found relevant to enhancing EBM learning

Learning conversations with trainees : an undervalued but useful EBM learning opportunity for clinical supervisors

Phenomenon: Supervisors and trainees can learn skills related to evidence-based medicine from each other in the workplace by collaborating and interacting, in this way benefiting from each other's strengths. This study explores supervisors' perceptions of how they currently learn evidence-based medicine by engaging in learning conversations with their trainee. Approach: Semi-structured, video-stimulated elicitation interviews were held with twenty-two Dutch and Belgian supervisors in general practice. Supervisors were shown fragments of their video-recorded learning conversations, allowing them to reflect. Recorded interviews were analyzed using a grounded theory-based approach.Findings: Supervisors did not immediately perceive workplace learning conversations as an opportunity to learn evidence-based medicine from their trainee. They mostly saw these conversations as a learning opportunity for trainees and a chance to maintain the quality of care within their practice. Nevertheless, during the interviews, supervisors did acknowledge that learning conversations help them to gain up-to-date knowledge and search skills or more awareness of their own knowledge or gaps in their knowledge. Not identified as a learning outcome was how to apply evidence-based medicine within a clinical practice by combining evidence with clinical expertise and the patient's preferences. Insights: Supervisors acknowledge that they learn elements of the three aspects of evidence-based medicine by having learning conversations with their trainee, but they currently see this as secondary to the trainee's learning process. Emphasizing opportunities for bidirectional learning could improve learning of evidence-based medicine during workplace learning conversations

2017 ESC Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Diseases, in collaboration with the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) : Document covering atherosclerotic disease of extracranial carotid and vertebral, mesenteric, renal, upper and lower extremity arteries

Endorsed by: the European Stroke Organization (ESO), The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS)Peer reviewe

Editor's Choice-2017 ESC Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Diseases, in collaboration with the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS)

Document covering atherosclerotic disease of extracranial carotid and vertebral, mesenteric, renal, upper and lower extremity arteries Endorsed by: the European Stroke Organization (ESO) The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) Authors/Task Force Members (a), Victor Aboyans (*), Jean- Baptiste Ricco (*), Marie- Louise E. L. Bartelink, Martin Bjorck, Marianne Brodmann, Tina Cohnert, Jean-Philippe Collet, Martin Czerny, Marco De Carlo, Sebastian Debus, Christine Espinola-Klein, Thomas Kahan, Serge Kownator, Lucia Mazzolai, A. Ross Naylor, Marco Roffi, Joachim Rother, Muriel Sprynger, Michal Tendera, Gunnar Tepe, Maarit Venermo, Charalambos Vlachopoulos, Ileana Desormais Document Reviewers (b), Petr Widimsky, Philippe Kolh, Stefan Agewall, Hector Bueno, Antonio Coca, Gert J. De Borst, Victoria Delgado, Florian Dick, Cetin Erol, Marc Ferrini, Stavros Kakkos, Hugo A. Katus, Juhani Knuuti, Jes Lindholt, Heinrich Mattle, Piotr Pieniazek, Massimo Francesco Piepoli, Dierk Scheinert, Horst Sievert, Iain Simpson, Jakub Sulzenko, Juan Tamargo, Lale Tokgozoglu, Adam Torbicki, Nikolaos Tsakountakis, Jose Tunon, Melina Vega de Ceniga, Stephan Windecker, Jose Luis ZamoranoPeer reviewe

Determinants of Patient Delay in Transient Ischemic Attack

Contains fulltext : 207877.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

General practice trainees' information searching strategies for clinical queries encountered in daily practice

Background. Earlier studies have shown that clinical queries are common among doctors. Data on the information-seeking behaviour of general practice (GP) trainees are scarce though, and numbers studied are small. Objective. The objective of this study was to determine how often and how GP trainees search for answers to clinical queries encountered in daily clinical practice. Methods. Third-year GP trainees kept logs on all patient contacts for eight consecutive practice days. Information was obtained on patient contacts (description), clinical queries (frequency, type), seeking behaviour (frequency, moment, reason not to search, resources used, duration of search) and answers (frequency, impact). Descriptive analyses were performed; frequencies and percentages were computed. We calculated the number of clinical queries per patient, the number of searches per query and the number of answers per search. Results. Seventy-six trainees reported 1533 clinical queries about 7300 patients presenting 7619 complaints [mean of 0.2 queries per patient, standard deviation (SD) 0.1]. For most of the queries trainees pursued an answer (mean of 0.8 per query, SD 0.2), mostly during consultation (61% of searches), and frequently retrieved answers (mean of 0.8 per search, SD 0.17) they reported to improve clinical decision making in 26%. Most common resources were colleagues or supervisors (28%), and national GP guidelines (26%). The median duration of a search was 4 minutes (interquartile range 3). Conclusion. GP trainees have one clinical query per five patients. They often attempted to find answers and reported to succeed in most of the searches, primarily by consulting supervisors or colleagues and national GP guidelines

The Utrecht questionnaire (U-CEP) measuring knowledge on clinical epidemiology proved to be valid

Objectives: Knowledge on clinical epidemiology is crucial to practice evidence-based medicine. We describe the development and validation of the Utrecht questionnaire on knowledge on Clinical epidemiology for Evidence-based Practice (U-CEP); an assessment tool to be used in the training of clinicians. Study Design and Setting: The U-CEP was developed in two formats: two sets of 25 questions and a combined set of 50. The validation was performed among postgraduate general practice (GP) trainees, hospital trainees, GP supervisors, and experts. Internal consistency, internal reliability (item-total correlation), item discrimination index, item difficulty, content validity, construct validity, responsiveness, test-retest reliability, and feasibility were assessed. The questionnaire was externally validated. Results: Internal consistency was good with a Cronbach alpha of 0.8. The median item-total correlation and mean item discrimination index were satisfactory. Both sets were perceived as relevant to clinical practice. Construct validity was good. Both sets were responsive but failed on test-retest reliability. One set took 24 minutes and the other 33 minutes to complete, on average. External GP trainees had comparable results. Conclusion: The U-CEP is a valid questionnaire to assess knowledge on clinical epidemiology, which is a prerequisite for practicing evidence-based medicine in daily clinical practice

The Utrecht questionnaire (U-CEP) measuring knowledge on clinical epidemiology proved to be valid

Objectives: Knowledge on clinical epidemiology is crucial to practice evidence-based medicine. We describe the development and validation of the Utrecht questionnaire on knowledge on Clinical epidemiology for Evidence-based Practice (U-CEP); an assessment tool to be used in the training of clinicians. Study Design and Setting: The U-CEP was developed in two formats: two sets of 25 questions and a combined set of 50. The validation was performed among postgraduate general practice (GP) trainees, hospital trainees, GP supervisors, and experts. Internal consistency, internal reliability (item-total correlation), item discrimination index, item difficulty, content validity, construct validity, responsiveness, test-retest reliability, and feasibility were assessed. The questionnaire was externally validated. Results: Internal consistency was good with a Cronbach alpha of 0.8. The median item-total correlation and mean item discrimination index were satisfactory. Both sets were perceived as relevant to clinical practice. Construct validity was good. Both sets were responsive but failed on test-retest reliability. One set took 24 minutes and the other 33 minutes to complete, on average. External GP trainees had comparable results. Conclusion: The U-CEP is a valid questionnaire to assess knowledge on clinical epidemiology, which is a prerequisite for practicing evidence-based medicine in daily clinical practice

The use of evidence during group meetings of Dutch general practitioners

<p><b>Background and Objectives:</b> For Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) learning journal clubs are recommended, but these are not common practice. How participants discuss and learn about applying evidence in other group meetings is unknown. We examined different types of group meetings and explored the use of, and discussions about, clinical research evidence.</p> <p><b>Methods:</b> A mixed-methods study design was adopted. After distribution and analysis of a questionnaire about types of group meetings, interviews were conducted to better understand the most frequently occurring type.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> GPs have different types of meetings, but the most common group meetings where evidence wass discussed were so called quality circles, i.e. pharmacotherapy audit meetings in which GPs discuss drug prescription figures or preferred treatment together with pharmacists. Interviews showed that the source of evidence used mostly are the recommendations in the national GP guidelines. The underlying evidence or new research did not play an important role in the discussions.</p> <p><b>Conclusions:</b> Quality circles seem to be more goal-oriented than learning oriented. Learning discussions about controversies in clinical research or about the integration of evidence, patient values and clinical expertise occurred infrequently. To harvest the potential value of group meetings for EBM learning, quality circles in their present design are not optimal.</p