An initial pre-defined list of preliminary EPA titles was derived from the EPA titles for anesthesiology training developed by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada 19 and those developed for anesthesiology training in the Netherlands.
Speaking up with suggestions, problems, or doubts is important—especially in health care action teams where each team member’s input can be crucial for the treatment of a patient. Implementing a high-fidelity simulation study, we investigated individual predictors of speaking up in acute care teams (ACTs). Participants were 27 physicians and 27 nurses from a hospital who completed measures on self-perceived agency (i.e., assertiveness, persistence, independence) and communion (i.e., helpfulness, friendliness, sociability). In two-person teams, they managed simulated critical events that required speaking up. In line with our hypotheses, we found that agency positively and communion negatively predicted actual speaking up behavior. We discuss the differential effects of agency and communion on speaking up and thereby highlight theoretical and practical implications.
We submit that interaction patterns within healthcare teams should be more comprehensively explored during debriefings in simulation-based training because of their importance for clinical performance. We describe how circular questions can be used for that purpose. Circular questions are based on social constructivism. They include a variety of systemic interviewing methods. The goals of circular questions are to explore the mutual dependency of team members’ behavior and recurrent behavior patterns, to generate information, to foster perspective taking, to “fluidize” problems, and to put actions into relational contexts. We describe the nature of circular questions, the benefits they offer, and ways of applying them during debriefings.
Background: Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) are commonly developed by senior clinicians and education experts. However, if postgraduate training is conceptualised as an educational alliance, the perspective of trainees should be included. This raises the question as to whether the views of trainees and supervisors on entrustability of specific EPAs differ, which we aimed to explore. Methods: A working group, including all stakeholders, selected and drafted 16 EPAs with the potential for unsupervised practice within the first year of training. For each EPA, first-year trainees, advanced trainees, and supervisors decided whether it should be possible to attain trust for unsupervised practice by the end of the first year of anaesthesiology training (i.e. whether the respective EPA qualified as a 'first-year EPA'). Results: We surveyed 23 first-year trainees, 47 advanced trainees, and 51 supervisors (overall response rate: 68%). All groups fully agreed upon seven EPAs as 'first-year EPAs' and on four EPAs that should not be entrusted within the first year. For all five remaining EPAs, a significantly higher proportion of first-year trainees thought these should be entrusted as first-year EPAs compared with advanced trainees and supervisors. We found no differences between advanced trainees and supervisors. Conclusions: The views of first-year trainees, advanced trainees, and supervisors showed high agreement. Differing views of young trainees disappeared after the first year. This finding provides a fruitful basis to involve trainees in negotiations of autonomy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.