Background: Controlled clinical trials of health care interventions are either explanatory or pragmatic. Explanatory trials test whether an intervention is efficacious; that is, whether it can have a beneficial effect in an ideal situation. Pragmatic trials measure effectiveness; they measure the degree of beneficial effect in real clinical practice. In pragmatic trials, a balance between external validity (generalizability of the results) and internal validity (reliability or accuracy of the results) needs to be achieved. The explanatory trial seeks to maximize the internal validity by assuring rigorous control of all variables other than the intervention. The pragmatic trial seeks to maximize external validity to ensure that the results can be generalized. However the danger of pragmatic trials is that internal validity may be overly compromised in the effort to ensure generalizability. We are conducting two pragmatic randomized controlled trials on interventions in the management of hypertension in primary care. We describe the design of the trials and the steps taken to deal with the competing demands of external and internal validity.

The overall rankings of the needs by the three groups are very similar. Information emerges as most important factor, with considerably less importance attached to comfort and support. There were significant differences between the groups on all categories and on 24 individual needs. Regarding the need categories, both nurses and physicians underestimate the relatives' need for information and proximity to the patient. Physicians also underestimate the relatives' need for assurance. On the individual need items, relatives' needs are generally underestimated by the staff, but in some cases overestimations are found.

Aim: To explore resident and faculty perceptions of the feedback process, especially residents' feedback-seeking activities. Methods: We conducted focus groups of faculty and residents exploring experiences in giving and receiving feedback, feedbackseeking, and suggestions to support feedback-seeking. Using qualitative methods and an iterative process, all authors analyzed the transcribed audiotapes to identify and confirm themes. Results: Emerging themes fit a framework situating resident feedback-seeking as dependent on four central factors: (1) learning/ workplace culture, (2) relationships, (3) purpose/quality of feedback, (4) emotional responses to feedback. Residents and faculty agreed on many supports and barriers to feedback-seeking. Strengthening the workplace/learning culture through longitudinal experiences, use of feedback forms and explicit expectations for residents to seek feedback, coupled with providing a sense of safety and adequate time for observation and providing feedback were suggested. Tensions between faculty and resident perceptions regarding feedback-seeking related to fear of being found deficient, the emotional costs related to corrective feedback and perceptions that completing clinical work is more valued than learning. Conclusion: Resident feedback-seeking is influenced by multiple factors requiring attention to both faculty and learner roles. Further study of specific influences and strategies to mitigate the tensions will inform how best to support residents in seeking feedback.

BackgroundMedical training is increasingly occurring in the ambulatory setting for final year medical students and residents. This study looks to identify if gender, school, level of training, or speciality affects learner's (final year medical students and residents) preferred site characteristics and preceptor behaviours for learning in the ambulatory setting.MethodsAll final year medical students and residents at the five medical schools in Ontario (N = 3471) were surveyed about the site characteristics and preceptor behaviours most enhancing their learning in the ambulatory setting. Preferred site characteristics and preceptor behaviours were rank ordered. Factor analysis grouped the site characteristics and preceptor behaviours into themes which were then correlated with gender, school, level of training, and speciality.ResultsHaving an adequate number and variety of patients while being supervised by enthusiastic preceptors who give feedback and are willing to discuss their reasoning processes and delegate responsibility are site characteristics and preceptor behaviours valued by almost all learners. Some teaching strategies recently suggested to improve efficiency in the ambulatory teaching setting, such as structuring the interview for the student and teaching and reviewing the case in front of the patient, were found not to be valued by learners. There was a striking degree of similarity in what was valued by all learners but there were also some educationally significant differences, particularly between learners at different levels and in different specialities. Key findings between the different levels include preceptor interaction being most important for medical students as opposed to residents who most value issues pertaining to patient logistics. Learning resources are less valued early and late in training. Teaching and having the case reviewed in front of the patient becomes increasingly less valued as learners advance in their training. As one approaches the end of ones' training office management instruction becomes increasingly valued. Differences between specialities pertain most to the type of practice residents will ultimately end up in (ie: office based specialties particularly valuing instruction in office management and health care system interaction).ConclusionsPreceptors need to be aware of, and make efforts to provide, teaching strategies such as feedback and discussing clinical reasoning, that learners have identified as being helpful for learning. If strategies identified as not being valued for learning, such as teaching in front of the patient, must continue it will be important to explore the barriers they present to learning. Although what all learners want from their preceptors and clinic settings to enhance their learning is remarkably similar, being aware of the educationally significant differences, particularly for learners at different levels and in different specialities, will enhance teaching in the ambulatory setting.