As in other BEME reviews, the methodological issues emerging from this review indicate a need for more rigorous study designs. In addition, it highlights the need to consider the potential for combining qualitative and quantitative data to further our understanding of how self-assessment can improve learning and professional clinical practice.

CONTEXT Patient care activity has recently increased without a proportionate rise in workforce numbers, impacting negatively on health care workplace learning. Health care professionals are prepared in part by spending time in clinical practice, and for medical staff this constitutes a contribution to service. Although stakeholders have identified the balance between health care professional education and patient care as a key priority for medical education research, there have been very few reviews to date on this important topic. METHODSWe conducted a realist synthesis of the UK literature from 1998 to answer two research questions. (1) What are the key workplace interventions designed to help achieve a balance between health care professional education and patient care delivery? (2) In what ways do interventions enable or inhibit this balance within the health care workplace, for whom and in what contexts? We followed Pawson's five stages of realist review: clarifying scope, searching for evidence, assessment of quality, data extraction and data synthesis. RESULTSThe most common interventions identified for balancing health care professional education and patient care delivery were ward round teaching, protected learning time and continuous professional development. The most common positive outcomes were simultaneous improvements in learning and patient care or improved learning or improved patient care. The most common contexts in which interventions were effective were primary care, postgraduate trainee, nurse and allied health professional contexts. By far the most common mechanisms through which interventions worked were organisational funding, workload management and support.CONCLUSION Our novel findings extend existing literature in this emerging area of health care education research. We provide recommendations for the development of educational policy and practice at the individual, interpersonal and organisational levels and call for more research using realist approaches to evaluate the increasing range of complex interventions to help balance health care professional education and patient care delivery.

This paper draws on our experiences of seeking research ethics and management approval for a 1-year ethnographic research study in three mental health settings. We argue that the increased bureaucratization of research governance in the UK is paternalistic and unfit for qualitative, non-interventionist study designs. The classification of all mental health services users as 'vulnerable' is also disempowering and contrary to government calls to increase user involvement in research processes. We relate our difficulties in accessing National Health Service sites to undertake our study despite endorsement by senior managers. The current research ethics system reinforces the gatekeeping role of front-line National Health Service staff but this may work to bias samples in favour of 'amenable' service users and exclude others from having their views and experiences represented in studies over the long-term.

No abstract

IntroductionA national survey was recently conducted to explore medical education research priorities in Scotland. The identified themes and underlying priority areas can be linked to current medical education drivers in the UK. The top priority area rated by stakeholders was: ‘Understanding how to balance service and training conflicts’. Despite its perceived importance, a preliminary scoping exercise revealed the least activity with respect to published literature reviews. This protocol has therefore been developed so as to understand how patient care, other service demands and student/trainee learning can be simultaneously facilitated within the healthcare workplace. The review will identify key interventions designed to balance patient care and student/trainee learning, to understand how and why such interventions produce their effects. Our research questions seek to address how identified interventions enable balanced patient care-trainee learning within the healthcare workplace, for whom, why and under what circumstances.Methods and analysisPawson's five stages for undertaking a realist review underpin this protocol. These stages may progress in a non-linear fashion due to the iterative nature of the review process. We will: (1) clarify the scope of the review, identifying relevant interventions and existing programme theories, understanding how interventions act to produce their intended outcomes; (2) search journal articles and grey literature for empirical evidence from 1998 (introduction of the European Working Time Directive) on the UK multidisciplinary team working concerning these interventions, theories and outcomes, using databases such as ERIC, Scopus and CINAHL; (3) assess study quality; (4) extract data; and (5) synthesise data, drawing conclusions.Ethics and disseminationA formal ethical review is not required. These findings should provide an important understanding of how workplace-based interventions influence the balance of trainee learning and service provision. They should benefit various stakeholders involved in workplace-based learning interventions, and inform the medical education research agenda in the UK.