scholarly journals Vocational thresholds: developing expertise without certainty in general practice medicine

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Vaughan

Abstract INTRODUCTION This paper argues that particular experiences in the workplace are more important than others and can lead to transformational learning. This may enable practitioners to cross ‘vocational thresholds’ to new ways of being. AIM A notion of ‘vocational thresholds’ is developed, aiming to help build an understanding of the most powerful learning experiences of general practitioners (GPs). Vocational thresholds takes its cue from the idea of ‘threshold concepts’ - concepts that transform perspectives and integrate previously disconnected or hidden knowledge, sometimes in ways that are ‘troublesome’ to previously held beliefs. METHODS The paper is based on a thematic analysis of 57 GPs’ brief written accounts of a particularly powerful learning experience during their development. Accounts were provided in a conference session about an ongoing study of workplace-based structured learning arrangements in the fields of general practice medicine, engineering, and building. FINDINGS Most GPs’ accounts focused on development of dispositional attributes that moved them to a new understanding of themselves in relation to their work and patients. Just under two-thirds picked out informal and formal collegial relationships within purposeful learning arrangements as pivotal. A third picked out direct experiences with patients as shifting their perspective. CONCLUSION The emergent idea of vocational thresholds is offered as a way to frame the most important learning experiences identified by GPs. It supports a focus in early and ongoing development beyond accumulating clinical expertise and skills (knowing and doing), to dispositional capability (being) - vital for practitioners negotiating inherent and daily uncertainty. KEYWORDS General practitioners; Medical education; Vocational education; Identity; Learning experiences; Threshold concepts

1974 ◽  
Vol 125 (585) ◽  
pp. 186-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. A. W. Johnson

Several surveys (Carstairs and Bruhn, 1962; Shepherd et al., 1966; and Johnson, 1973a) have demonstrated that the treatment of psychiatric disorders in general practice consists principally of prescribing drugs, with relatively little use of social agencies and psychotherapy. Although Shepherd et al. (1966) comment that the treatment is often haphazard and inadequate, the published surveys of general practice give little specific information about the prescribing habits of doctors. The present author surveyed the prescribing habits of general practitioners in the treatment of depression in the belief that it is necessary to have this information in order to evaluate the need for education in this clinical expertise, and also to act as a comparison for other surveys which will undoubtedly be carried out in the future to test the effectiveness of the current expansion of undergraduate teaching in psychiatry.


2008 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 76-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah M. Ginsberg

Abstract This qualitative study examined student perceptions regarding a hybrid classroom format in which part of their learning took place in a traditional classroom and part of their learning occurred in an online platform. Pre-course and post-course anonymous essays suggest that students may be open to learning in this context; however, they have specific concerns as well. Students raised issues regarding faculty communication patterns, learning styles, and the value of clear connections between online and traditional learning experiences. Student concerns and feedback need to be addressed through the course design and by the instructor in order for them to have a positive learning experience in a hybrid format course.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marie Broholm-Jørgensen ◽  
Siff Monrad Langkilde ◽  
Tine Tjørnhøj-Thomsen ◽  
Pia Vivian Pedersen

Abstract Background The aim of this article is to explore preventive health dialogues in general practice in the context of a pilot study of a Danish primary preventive intervention ‘TOF’ (a Danish acronym for ‘Early Detection and Prevention’) carried out in 2016. The intervention consisted of 1) a stratification of patients into one of four groups, 2) a digital support system for both general practitioners and patients, 3) an individual digital health profile for each patient, and 4) targeted preventive services in either general practice or a municipal health center. Methods The empirical material in this study was obtained through 10 observations of preventive health dialogues conducted in general practices and 18 semi-structured interviews with patients and general practitioners. We used the concept of ‘motivational work’ as an analytical lens for understanding preventive health dialogues in general practice from the perspectives of both general practitioners and patients. Results While the health dialogues in TOF sought to reveal patients’ motivations, understandings, and priorities related to health behavior, we find that the dialogues were treatment-oriented and structured around biomedical facts, numeric standards, and risk factor guidance. Overall, we find that numeric standards and quantification of motivation lessens the dialogue and interaction between General Practitioner and patient and that contextual factors relating to the intervention framework, such as a digital support system, the general practitioners’ perceptions of their professional position as well as the patients’ understanding of prevention —in an interplay—diminished the motivational work carried out in the health dialogues. Conclusion The findings show that the influence of different kinds of context adds to the complexity of prevention in the clinical encounter which help to explain why motivational work is difficult in general practice.


Livestock ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 196-201
Author(s):  
John F Mee ◽  
Rhona Ley

Postmortem examinations can be a useful diagnostic tool in farm animal medicine; however, they are often avoided in general practice because of a lack of appropriate facilities and expertise/familiarity with techniques. This article describes the setting up of a basic facility to allow general practitioners to perform postmortem examinations of calves, small ruminants and other small animals, e.g. poultry.


Author(s):  
Trisha Gupte ◽  
Field M. Watts ◽  
Jennifer A. Schmidt-McCormack ◽  
Ina Zaimi ◽  
Anne Ruggles Gere ◽  
...  

Teaching organic chemistry requires supporting learning strategies that meaningfully engage students with the challenging concepts and advanced problem-solving skills needed to be successful. Such meaningful learning experiences should encourage students to actively choose to incorporate new concepts into their existing knowledge frameworks by appealing to the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains of learning. This study provides a qualitative analysis of students’ meaningful learning experiences after completing three Writing-to-Learn (WTL) assignments in an organic chemistry laboratory course. The assignments were designed to appeal to the three domains necessary for a meaningful learning experience, and this research seeks to understand if and how the WTL assignments promoted students’ meaningful learning. The primary data collected were the students’ responses to open-ended feedback surveys conducted after each assignment. These responses were qualitatively analyzed to identify themes across students’ experiences about their meaningful learning. The feedback survey analysis was triangulated with interviews conducted after each assignment. The results identify how the assignments connected to students’ existing knowledge from other courses and indicate that assignment components such as authentic contexts, clear expectations, and peer review supported students’ meaningful learning experiences. These results inform how assignment design can influence students’ learning experiences and suggest implications for how to support students’ meaningful learning of organic chemistry through writing.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e001309
Author(s):  
Jennifer Gosling ◽  
Nicholas Mays ◽  
Bob Erens ◽  
David Reid ◽  
Josephine Exley

BackgroundThis paper presents the results of the first UK-wide survey of National Health Service (NHS) general practitioners (GPs) and practice managers (PMs) designed to explore the service improvement activities being undertaken in practices, and the factors that facilitated or obstructed that work. The research was prompted by growing policy and professional interest in the quality of general practice and its improvement. The analysis compares GP and PM involvement in, and experience of, quality improvement activities.MethodsThis was a mixed-method study comprising 26 semistructured interviews, a focus group and two surveys. The qualitative data supported the design of the surveys, which were sent to all 46 238 GPs on the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) database and the PM at every practice across the UK (n=9153) in July 2017.ResultsResponses from 2377 GPs and 1424 PMs were received and were broadly representative of each group. Ninety-nine per cent reported having planned or undertaken improvement activities in the previous 12 months. The most frequent related to prescribing and access. Key facilitators of improvement included ‘good clinical leadership’. The two main barriers were ‘too many demands from external stakeholders’ and a lack of protected time. Audit and significant event audit were the most common improvement tools used, but respondents were interested in training on other quality improvement tools.ConclusionGPs and PMs are interested in improving service quality. As such, the new quality improvement domain in the Quality and Outcomes Framework used in the payment of practices is likely to be relatively easily accepted by GPs in England. However, if improving quality is to become routine work for practices, it will be important for the NHS in the four UK countries to work with practices to mitigate some of the barriers that they face, in particular the lack of protected time.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. e001050
Author(s):  
Andrew O'Regan ◽  
Michael Pollock ◽  
Saskia D'Sa ◽  
Vikram Niranjan

BackgroundExercise prescribing can help patients to overcome physical inactivity, but its use in general practice is limited. The purpose of this narrative review was to investigate contemporaneous experiences of general practitioners and patients with exercise prescribing.MethodPubMed, Scopus, Science Direct and Cochrane reviews were reviewed using the terms ‘exercise prescription’, ‘exercise prescribing’, ‘family practice’, ‘general practice’, ‘adults’ and ‘physical activity prescribing’.ResultsAfter screening by title, abstract and full paper, 23 studies were selected for inclusion. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies revealed key experiences of general practitioners and patients. Barriers identified included: physician characteristics, patients’ physical and psychosocial factors, systems and cultural failures, as well as ambiguity around exercise prescribing. We present a synthesis of the key strategies to overcome these using an ABC approach: A: assessment of physical activity: involves asking about physical activity, barriers and risks to undertaking an exercise prescription; B: brief intervention: advice, written prescription detailing frequency, intensity, timing and type of exercise; and C: continued support: providing ongoing monitoring, accountability and progression of the prescription. Multiple supports were identified: user-friendly resources, workshops for doctors, guidelines for specific illnesses and multimorbidity, electronic devices, health system support and collaboration with other healthcare and exercise professionals.DiscussionThis review has identified levers for facilitating exercise prescribing and adherence to it. The findings have been presented in an ABC format as a guide and support for general practitioners to prescribe exercise.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. e000512
Author(s):  
Ingvild Vatten Alsnes ◽  
Morten Munkvik ◽  
W Dana Flanders ◽  
Nicolas Øyane

ObjectivesWe aimed to describe the quality improvement measures made by Norwegian general practice (GP) during the COVID-19 pandemic, evaluate the differences in quality improvements based on region and assess the combinations of actions taken.DesignDescriptive study.SettingParticipants were included after taking part in an online quality improvement COVID-19 course for Norwegian GPs in April 2020. The participants reported whether internal and external measures were in place: COVID-19 sign on entrance, updated home page, access to video consultations and/or electronic written consultations, home office solutions, separate working teams, preparedness for home visits, isolation rooms, knowledge on decontamination, access to sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) and COVID-19 clinics.ParticipantsOne hundred GP offices were included. The mean number of general practitioners per office was 5.63.ResultsMore than 80% of practices had the following preparedness measures: COVID-19 sign on entrance, updated home page, COVID-19 clinic in the municipality, video and written electronic consultations, knowledge on how to use PPE, and home office solutions for general practitioners. Less than 50% had both PPE and knowledge of decontamination. Lack of PPE was reported by 37%, and 34% reported neither sufficient PPE nor a dedicated COVID-19 clinic. 15% reported that they had an isolation room, but not enough PPE. There were no geographical differences.ConclusionsNorwegian GPs in this study implemented many quality improvements to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, the largest potentials for improvement seem to be securing sufficient supply of PPE and establishing an isolation room at their practices.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1284.1-1285
Author(s):  
A. S. Lundberg ◽  
B. A. Esbensen ◽  
E. M. Hauge ◽  
A. De Thurah

Background:Early treatment, before three months from symptom onset of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), is essential to increase the likelihood of remission and to prevent permanent joint damage (1). However, it has been shown that only 20% of the patients are seen within the first three months, and the median delay in general practice has been estimated to 4 months (range 2–9) (2).Objectives:To explore the barriers in diagnosing RA from the general practitioners’ (GPs) perspective.Methods:We conducted a qualitative study based on focus group interviews. We recorded the interviews digitally and transcribed verbatim. The transcribed interviews were analyzed based on content analysis (3), by using Nivo 12. Sample size was determined by thematic saturation.Results:In total ten GPs participated in three different focus groups. 40 % were female, mean age was 53 years (range 37-64), and mean year since specialist authorization as GP was 16 years (range 5-23). 60 % of the GPs worked in a practice located within the referral area of a university hospital; the remaining within the referral area of a regional hospital.Four themes emerged in the analysis: 1) When the patient is not a text book example, referring to the difficulty of identifying relevant symptoms among all clinical manifestations from the joints as described by the patients, 2)The importance of maintaining the gatekeeper function, referring to the societal perspective, and the GPs responsibility to refer the right patients to secondary care, 3)Difficulties in referral of patients to the rheumatologist,referring to perceived differences in the collaboration with rheumatologists. The GPs experienced that it was sometimes difficult to be assisted by rheumatologists, especially when the clinical picture was not ‘clear cut’. Finally, (4)Para-clinical testing, can it be trusted?referring to challenges on the evaluation of especially biomarkers.The overarching theme was:Like finding a needle in a haystack, covering the GPs difficulties in detecting RA among the many patients in general practice who appear to be well and at the same time have symptoms very similar to RA.Conclusion:The GPs experienced that RA was a difficult diagnosis to make. The immediate challenge was that RA patient’s initial symptoms often resembled those of more common and less serious conditions, and that investigative findings such as biomarkers can be negative at the early state of the disease. At the same time, the collaboration with rheumatologists was sometimes seen as a hurdle, when the clinical picture was not ‘clear cut’.In order to facilitate earlier diagnosis of RA in general practice, the GPs and rheumatologists need to focus on these barriers by strengthening mutual information and collaboration.Physicians should remain vigilant to patients who have conditions that do not resolve as expected with treatment, who have symptoms that persist, or who do not look well despite negative investigative findings.References:[1]Aletaha D, et al. JAMA, Oct 2018.[2]Kiely P, et al. Rheumatology, Jan 2009.[3]Braun V. Qualitative research in psychology. 2006, 3(2), 77-101Disclosure of Interests:Anne Sofie Lundberg: None declared, Bente Appel Esbensen: None declared, Ellen-Margrethe Hauge Speakers bureau: Fees for speaking/consulting: MSD, AbbVie, UCB and Sobi; research funding to Aarhus University Hospital: Roche and Novartis (not related to the submitted work)., Annette de Thurah Grant/research support from: Novartis (not relevant for the present study)., Speakers bureau: Lily (not relevant for the present study).


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisanne S. Welink ◽  
Kaatje Van Roy ◽  
Roger A. M. J. Damoiseaux ◽  
Hilde A. Suijker ◽  
Peter Pype ◽  
...  

Abstract 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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document