Exploring power dynamics and their impact on intraprofessional learning

Item does not contain fulltext12 p

Consensus about GP interprofessional competencies:A nominal group study

BACKGROUND: Since the requirements for collaboration in primary care increase, effective interprofessional teamwork between general practitioners (GPs) and other primary care professionals is crucial. The need for more training in interprofessional collaborative competencies is widely recognised. However, existing competency frameworks do not sufficiently specify interprofessional collaboration to guide interprofessional competency development. AIM: Consensus among GPs and other primary care professionals on interprofessional competencies that GP and GP-trainees should learn. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative consensus study among Dutch GPs and other primary care professionals, all with expertise in primary care interprofessional collaborative practice. METHOD: Three nominal group sessions were held, each resulting in its own group consensus on GP interprofessional collaborative competencies. The researchers conducted a content analysis to merge and thematise the prioritised competencies into one list. Participants prioritised this list of competencies. A pre-set cut-off point was applied to determine the overall consensus on core GP interprofessional competencies. RESULTS: Eighteen professionals from nine different disciplines participated. The content analysis resulted in 31 unique competencies of which fourteen competencies were prioritised in the final ranking into three main themes: 1. Professional identity development and role definition by the GP. (three competencies); 2. Developing and executing shared care plans for individual patients (6); 3. Setting up and maintaining interprofessional collaborative partnerships.(5) CONCLUSION: An interprofessional group of experts reached consensus on 14 competencies within 3 themes. This framework provides a steppingstone for GPs to focus on their development regarding interprofessional collaboration

How does portfolio use support self-regulated learning during general practitioner specialty training?:A qualitative focus group study

OBJECTIVES: Portfolios are used to support self-regulated learning (SRL), but the research literature is still inconclusive on their effectiveness. This study explored experiences with portfolio use among different stakeholders, to answer the research question: How does portfolio use support SRL during general practitioner (GP) specialty training? DESIGN: We used a qualitative research design, based on phenomenology. SETTING: Three of the eight training institutes of Dutch GP specialty training participated in this study. PARTICIPANTS: The three stakeholder groups that use the portfolio were included in nine homogenous focus groups: trainees (n=16), supervisors (n=16) and faculty (n=17). All participants had at least 6-month experience with portfolio use. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: SRL with(out) the portfolio, stakeholder dynamics and ambiguities. Respondents were doubtful about the learning benefits of portfolio use, as most trainees used their portfolio to 'check off' what was considered required. Stakeholder dynamics contributed to checking off behaviour in two ways. First, trainees experienced documenting learning activities to be superfluous, since the close relationship with their supervisor already supported SRL sufficiently. Second, faculty often (unintentionally) took portfolio ownership away from trainees, as they instructed trainees to deliver portfolio content that was valuable for assessment. Without ownership, trainees struggled to use the portfolio for SRL. Besides, ambiguities related to portfolio use amplified checking off behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Portfolio use did not support SRL in our setting. The multipurpose use of the portfolio (for the support of SRL and assessment) was identified as the primary obstacle. Underlying is a conflict that is often present in current medical curricula: agency versus accountability. If the support of SRL is considered a valuable and attainable purpose of portfolio use, it is important to realise that deliberate attention for this purpose is required during the design, guidance, assessment and evaluation of the portfolio

Effect of shared care on blood pressure in patients with chronic kidney disease: A cluster randomised controlled trial

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is highly prevalent in patients with diabetes or hypertension in primary care. A shared care model could improve quality of care in these patients Aim: To assess the effect of a shared care model in managing patie

Referring patients with stable moderate-to-advanced chronic kidney disease back to primary care: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND: Care for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) necessitates tailored pathways between primary and secondary care. It is unknown if back referring patients with CKD is safe and effective. AIM: To study the feasibility of discharging patients with stable moderate-to-advanced CKD from secondary to primary care, and to evaluate quality of care (QoC) and patients' and GPs' experiences. DESIGN & SETTING: A monocentre prospective mixed-method study in the Netherlands. METHOD: Patients were included who met pre-determined back-referral (BR) criteria. Patients were discharged with personalised information guides and transfer letters. GPs had the option of consulting a nephrologist by telenephrology. Renal outcomes, QoC, and experiences were collected after 1 year. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were included. The mean age was 73 years; the mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 33.2 ml/min/1.73 m2 at baseline. After 1 year, four patients had received either no or incomplete monitoring, and one patients' blood pressure was too high. The remaining 13 had stable eGFR, proteinuria, and metabolic parameters. Patients were satisfied with information provision and treatment by GPs but expected more frequent monitoring. In one-third of cases, monitoring frequency was decreased by GPs for several reasons. GPs believed they had sufficient knowledge to treat patients with CKD, but indicated they needed support besides a transfer letter. CONCLUSION: BR seems safe and feasible for patients with stable moderate-to-advanced CKD who meet specific criteria. Patients have good renal outcomes after 1 year and are satisfied with treatment. GP QoC can be improved, particularly completeness and monitoring frequency

Additional file 2: of Learning intraprofessional collaboration by participating in a consultation programme: what and how did primary and secondary care trainees learn?

Example of the process of coding and abstraction of themes and subthemes. (PDF 443 kb

Additional file 1: of Learning intraprofessional collaboration by participating in a consultation programme: what and how did primary and secondary care trainees learn?

Interview questions for the focus groups. (DOCX 13 kb