ContextThis paper presents a realist synthesis of the literature that began with the objective of developing a theory of workplace learning specific to postgraduate medical education (PME). As the review progressed, we focused on informal learning between trainee and senior doctor or supervisor, asking what mechanisms occur between trainee and senior doctor that lead to the outcomes of PME, and what contexts shape the operation of these mechanisms and the outcomes they produce?MethodsWe followed the procedures outlined in the RAMESES Publication Standards for Realist Synthesis. We searched the English‐language literature published between 1995 and 2017 for empirical papers related to informal workplace learning between supervisor and trainee, excluding formal interventions such as workplace‐based assessment. We made a pragmatic decision to exclude general practice training to keep the review within manageable limits.ResultsWe reviewed 5197 papers and selected 90. Synthesis revealed three workplace learning processes occurring between supervisors and trainees, each underpinned by a pair of mechanisms: supervised participation in practice (entrustment and support seeking); mutual observation of practice (monitoring and modelling), and dialogue during practice (meaning making and feedback). These mechanisms result in outcomes of PME, including safe participation in practice, learning skills, attitudes and behaviours and professional identity development. Contexts shaping the outcomes of these mechanisms were identified at individual, interpersonal, local and systems levels.ConclusionsOur realist theory of workplace learning between supervisors and trainees is informed by theory and empirical research. It highlights the two‐way nature of supervision, the importance of trainees’ agency in their own learning and the deleterious effect of fragmented working patterns on supervisor–trainee learning mechanisms. Further empirical research is required to test and refine this theory. In the meantime, it provides a useful framework for the design of supportive learning environments and for the preparation of supervisors and trainees for their roles in workplace learning.

BackgroundHigh quality clinical learning environments (CLE) are critical to postgraduate medical education (PGME). The understaffed and overcrowded environments in which many residents work present a significant challenge to learning. The purpose of this study was to develop a national expert group consensus amongst stakeholders in PGME to; (i) identify important barriers and facilitators of learning in CLEs and (ii) indicate priority areas for improvement. Our objective was to provide information to focus efforts to provide high quality CLEs.MethodsGroup Concept Mapping (GCM) is an integrated mixed methods approach to generating expert group consensus. A multi-disciplinary group of experts were invited to participate in the GCM process via an online platform. Multi-dimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis were used to analyse participant inputs in regard to barriers, facilitators and priorities.ResultsParticipants identified facilitators and barriers in ten domains within clinical learning environments. Domains rated most important were those which related to residents’ connection to and engagement with more senior doctors. Organisation and conditions of work and Time to learn with senior doctors during patient care were rated as the most difficult areas in which to make improvements.ConclusionsHigh quality PGME requires that residents engage and connect with senior doctors during patient care, and that they are valued and supported both as learners and service providers. Academic medicine and health service managers must work together to protect these elements of CLEs, which not only shape learning, but impact quality of care and patient safety.

ObjectivesProgrammes to ensure doctors’ maintenance of professional competence (MPC) have been established in many countries. Since 2011, doctors in Ireland have been legally required to participate in MPC. A significant minority has been slow to engage with MPC, mirroring the contested nature of such programmes internationally. This study aimed to describe doctors’ attitudes and experiences of MPC in Ireland with a view to enhancing engagement.ParticipantsAll registered medical practitioners in Ireland required to undertake MPC in 2018 were surveyed using a 33-item cross-sectional mixed-methods survey designed to elicit attitudes, experiences and suggestions for improvement.ResultsThere were 5368 responses (response rate 42%). Attitudes to MPC were generally positive, but the time, effort and expense involved outweighed the benefit for half of doctors. Thirty-eight per cent agreed that MPC is a tick-box exercise. Heavy workload, travel, requirement to record continuing professional development activities and demands placed on personal time were difficulties cited. Additional support, as well as higher quality, more varied educational activities, were among suggested improvements. Thirteen per cent lacked confidence that they could meet requirements, citing employment status as the primary issue. MPC was particularly challenging for those working less than full-time, in locum or non-clinical roles, and taking maternity or sick leave. Seventy-seven per cent stated a definite intention to comply with MPC requirements. Being male, or having a basic medical qualification from outside Ireland, was associated with less firm intention to comply.ConclusionsDoctors need to be convinced of the benefits of MPC to them and their patients. A combination of clear communication and improved relevance to practice would help. Addition of a facilitated element, for example, appraisal, and varied ways to meet requirements, would support participation. MPC should be adequately resourced, including provision of high-quality free educational activities. Systems should be established to continually evaluate doctors’ perspectives.

BackgroundPostgraduate medical education and training (PGMET) is a complex social process which happens predominantly during the delivery of patient care. The clinical learning environment (CLE), the context for PGMET, shapes the development of the doctors who learn and work within it, ultimately impacting the quality and safety of patient care. Clinical workplaces are complex, dynamic systems in which learning emerges from non-linear interactions within a network of related factors and activities. Those tasked with the design and delivery of postgraduate medical education and training need to understand the relationship between the processes of medical workplace learning and these contextual elements in order to optimise conditions for learning. We propose to conduct a realist synthesis of the literature to address the overarching questions; how, why and in what circumstances do doctors learn in clinical environments? This review is part of a funded projected with the overall aim of producing guidelines and recommendations for the design of high quality clinical learning environments for postgraduate medical education and training.MethodsWe have chosen realist synthesis as a methodology because of its suitability for researching complexity and producing answers useful to policymakers and practitioners. This realist synthesis will follow the steps and procedures outlined by Wong et al. in the RAMESES Publication Standards for Realist Synthesis and the Realist Synthesis RAMESES Training Materials. The core research team is a multi-disciplinary group of researchers, clinicians and health professions educators. The wider research group includes experts in organisational behaviour and human resources management as well as the key stakeholders; doctors in training, patient representatives and providers of PGMET.DiscussionThis study will draw from the published literature and programme, and substantive, theories of workplace learning, to describe context, mechanism and outcome configurations for PGMET. This information will be useful to policymakers and practitioners in PGMET, who will be able to apply our findings within their own contexts. Improving the quality of clinical learning environments can improve the performance, humanism and wellbeing of learners and improve the quality and safety of patient care.Systematic review registrationThe review is not registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews as the review objectives relate solely to education outcomes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0415-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.