Toward ‘seeing’ critically: a Bayesian analysis of the impacts of a critical pedagogy

Critical reflection supports enactment of the social roles of care, like collaboration and advocacy. We require evidence that links critical teaching approaches to future critically reflective practice. We thus asked: does a theory-informed approach to teaching critical reflection influence what learners talk about (i.e. topics of discussion) and how they talk (i.e. whether they talk in critically reflective ways) during subsequent learning experiences? Pre-clinical students (n = 75) were randomized into control and intervention conditions (8 groups each, of up to 5 interprofessional students). Participants completed an online Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) module, followed by either: a SDoH discussion (control) or critically reflective dialogue (intervention). Participants then experienced a common learning session (homecare curriculum and debrief) as outcome assessment, and another similar session one-week later. Blinded coders coded transcripts for what (topics) was said and how (critically reflective or not). We constructed Bayesian regression models for the probability of meaning units (unique utterances) being coded as particular what codes and as critically reflective or not (how). Groups exposed to the intervention were more likely, in a subsequent learning experience, to talk in a critically reflective manner (how) (0.096 [0.04, 0.15]) about similar content (no meaningful differences in what was said). This difference waned at one-week follow up. We showed experimentally that a particular critical pedagogical approach can make learners’ subsequent talk, ways of seeing, more critically reflective even when talking about similar topics. This study offers the field important new options for studying historically challenging-to-evaluate impacts and supports theoretical assertions about the potential of critical pedagogies.

A behavioural study of obedience in health professional students

Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice (IPECP) is a field of study suggested to improve team functioning and patient safety. However, even interprofessional teams are susceptible to group pressures which may inhibit speaking up (positive deviance). Obedience is one group pressure that can inhibit positive deviance leading to negative patient outcomes. To examine the influence of obedience to authority in an interprofessional setting, an experimental simulated clinical scenario was conducted with Respiratory Therapy (RT) (n = 40) and Advanced Care Paramedic (ACP) (n = 20) students. In an airway management scenario, it was necessary for students to challenge an authority, a senior anesthesiologist, to prevent patient harm. In a 2 × 2 design cognitive load and an interventional writing task designed to increase positive deviance were tested. The effect of individual characteristics, including Moral Foundations, and displacement of responsibility were also examined. There was a significant effect for profession and cognitive load: RT students demonstrated lower levels of positive deviance in the low cognitive load scenario than students in other conditions. The writing task did not have a significant effect on RT or ACP students’ behaviour. The influence of Moral Foundations differed from expectations, In Group Loyalty was selected as a negative predictor of positive deviance while Respect for Authority was not. Displacement of responsibility was influential for some participants thought not for all. Other individual variables were identified for further investigation. Observational analysis of the simulation videos was conducted to obtain further insight into student behaviour in a compliance scenario. Individual differences, including experience, should be considered when providing education and training for positive deviance. Simulation provides an ideal setting to use compliance scenarios to train for positive deviance and for experimentation to study interprofessional team behaviour.

Is reflection like soap? a critical narrative umbrella review of approaches to reflection in medical education research

Reflection is a complex concept in medical education research. No consensus exists on what reflection exactly entails; thus far, cross-comparing empirical findings has not resulted in definite evidence on how to foster reflection. The concept is as slippery as soap. This leaves the research field with the question, ‘how can research approach the conceptual indeterminacy of reflection to produce knowledge?’. The authors conducted a critical narrative umbrella review of research on reflection in medical education. Forty-seven review studies on reflection research from 2000 onwards were reviewed. The authors used the foundational literature on reflection from Dewey and Schön as an analytical lens to identify and critically juxtapose common approaches in reflection research that tackle the conceptual complexity. Research on reflection must deal with the paradox that every conceptualization of reflection is either too sharp or too broad because it is entrenched in practice. The key to conceptualizing reflection lies in its use and purpose, which can be provided by in situ research of reflective practices.

Improving medical residents’ self-assessment of their diagnostic accuracy: does feedback help?

When physicians do not estimate their diagnostic accuracy correctly, i.e. show inaccurate diagnostic calibration, diagnostic errors or overtesting can occur. A previous study showed that physicians’ diagnostic calibration for easy cases improved, after they received feedback on their previous diagnoses. We investigated whether diagnostic calibration would also improve from this feedback when cases were more difficult. Sixty-nine general-practice residents were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the feedback condition, they diagnosed a case, rated their confidence in their diagnosis, their invested mental effort, and case complexity, and then were shown the correct diagnosis (feedback). This was repeated for 12 cases. Participants in the control condition did the same without receiving feedback. We analysed calibration in terms of (1) absolute accuracy (absolute difference between diagnostic accuracy and confidence), and (2) bias (confidence minus diagnostic calibration). There was no difference between the conditions in the measurements of calibration (absolute accuracy, p = .204; bias, p = .176). Post-hoc analyses showed that on correctly diagnosed cases (on which participants are either accurate or underconfident), calibration in the feedback condition was less accurate than in the control condition, p = .013. This study shows that feedback on diagnostic performance did not improve physicians’ calibration for more difficult cases. One explanation could be that participants were confronted with their mistakes and thereafter lowered their confidence ratings even if cases were diagnosed correctly. This shows how difficult it is to improve diagnostic calibration, which is important to prevent diagnostic errors or maltreatment.