General Interest Sessions
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6643204 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesAdopting an attributional perspective, the current article investigates how audit and feedback group sessions contribute to general practitioners' (GPs) motivation to change their practice behaviour to improve care. We focus on the contributions of the audit and feedback itself (content) and the group discussion (process).MethodsFour focus groups, comprising a total of 39 participating Dutch GPs, discussed and compared audit and feedback of their practices. The focus groups were analysed thematically.ResultsAudit and feedback contributed to GPs' motivation to change in two ways: by raising awareness about aspects of their current care practice and by providing indications of the possible impact of change. For these contributions to play out, the audit and feedback should be reliable and valid, specific, recent and recurrent and concern GPs' own practices or practices within their own influence sphere. Care behaviour attributed to external, uncontrollable or unstable causes would not induce change. The added value of the group is twofold as well: group discussion contributed to GPs' motivation to change by providing a frame of reference and by affording insights that participants would not have been able to achieve on their own.ConclusionsIn audit and feedback group sessions, both audit and feedback information and group discussion can valuably contribute to GPs' motivation to change care practice behaviour. Peer interaction can positively contribute to explore alternative practices and avenues for improvement. Local or regional peer meetings would be beneficial in facilitating reflection and discussion. An important avenue for future studies is to explore the contribution of audit and feedback and small-group discussion to actual practice change.
| S-EPMC6549704 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, general surgery has faced a decline in applicants for postgraduate training. The St. George's Surgical Society hosted a national surgical conference with an aim to explore the reasons for the decline and to investigate the effectiveness of a one-day intervention on students' perceptions of general surgery and surgical skills.Materials and methodsThe conference took place on 20th January 2018 at St. George's, University of London. During the conference, medical students received lectures on "careers in surgery" and small-group workshops introducing students to simulation-based laparoscopic machines. Delegates were invited to complete before and after questionnaires looking at various domains; (1) Perceptions of general surgery, (2) Simulation skills, and (3) Usefulness of the day.ResultsThere were significant impacts on student perceptions of the speciality such as increases in the views that "general surgery contained the opportunities for personal and professional development" (26%, p = 0.04), and of "general surgery as a rewarding speciality" (26%, p = 0.05). There were also negative changes such as an increase in the perception that "general surgery is female unfriendly" (+32%, p = 0.01). There were positive findings in all aspects relating to the use of laparoscopic simulation.DiscussionThe challenges faced in improving access to general surgery has been highlighted. More importantly the benefits of a one day intervention in addressing misconceptions and improving knowledge was seen. This study also shows the benefits of simulation teaching in the undergraduate curriculum.ConclusionThe intervention has improved the perceptions on general surgery, surgical skills and knowledge and provided a platform for engaging students and clinicians.
| S-EPMC6423304 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11636034 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness, accessibility, and acceptability of a general practitioner with special interest service for skin problems compared with a hospital dermatology clinic.DesignRandomised controlled trial.SettingGeneral practitioner with special interest dermatology service and hospital dermatology clinic.ParticipantsAdults referred to a hospital dermatology clinic and assessed by a consultant or the general practitioner with special interest service,. Suitable patients had non-urgent skin problems and had been identified from the referral letter as suitable for management by a general practitioner with special interest.InterventionsParticipants were randomised in 2:1 ratio to receive management by a general practitioner with special interest or usual hospital outpatient care.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were disease related quality of life (dermatology life quality index) and improvement in patients' perception of access to services, assessed nine months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, preference for site of care, proportion of failed appointments, and waiting times to first appointment.Results49% of the participants were judged suitable for care by the general practitioner with special interest service. Of 768 patients eligible, 556 (72.4%) were randomised (354 to general practitioner with special interest, 202 to hospital outpatient care). After nine months, 422 (76%) were followed up. No noticeable differences were found between the groups in clinical outcome (median dermatology life quality index score = 1 both arms, ratio of geometric means 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.15). The general practitioner with special interest service was more accessible (difference between means on access scale 14, 11 to 19) and waited a mean of 40 (35 to 46) days less. Patients expressed slightly greater satisfaction with consultations with a general practitioner with special interest (difference in mean satisfaction score 4, 1 to 7), and at baseline and after nine months 61% said they preferred care at the service.ConclusionsThe general practitioner with special interest service for dermatology was more accessible and preferred by patients than hospital outpatient care, achieving similar clinical outcomes. Trial registration ISRCTN31962758.
| S-EPMC1315649 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo support professional development of medical students faced with challenges of the clinical phase, collaborative reflection sessions (CRSs) are used to share and reflect on workplace experiences. Facilitation of CRSs seems essential to optimise learning and to provide important skills for lifelong learning as a professional. However, little is known about which workplace experiences students share in CRSs without advance guidance on specific topics, and how reflecting on these experiences contributes to students' professional development. Therefore, we explored which workplace experiences students shared, what they learned from reflection on these experiences, and how they perceived the value of CRSs.MethodsWe conducted an exploratory study among medical students (N = 99) during their General Practice placement. Students were invited to openly share workplace experiences, without pre-imposed instruction. A thematic analysis was performed on shared experiences and student learning gains. Students' perceptions of CRSs were analysed using descriptive statistics.ResultsAll 99 students volunteered to fill out the questionnaire. We found four themes relating to students' shared experiences: interactions with patients, complex patient care, diagnostic or therapeutic considerations, and dealing with collegial issues. Regarding students' learning gains, we found 6 themes: learning from others or learning from sharing with others, learning about learning, communication skills, self-regulation, determination of position within the healthcare team, and importance of good documentation. Students indicated that they learned from reflection on their own and peer's workplace experiences. Students valued the CRSs as a safe environment in which to share workplace experiences and helpful for their professional development.ConclusionsIn the challenging General Practice placement, open-topic, guided CRSs provide a helpful and valued learning environment relevant to professional development and offer opportunities for vicarious learning among peers. CRSs may also be a valuable tool to incorporate into other placements.
| S-EPMC10577966 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is commonly a discrepancy between conference abstracts and published article abstracts in prosthodontic randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which may mislead the scholars those attend conferences.ObjectiveTo identify the characteristics predicting inconsistency between conference abstracts and published article abstracts in prosthodontic RCTs.MethodsThe conference abstracts of prosthodontic RCTs presented at the IADR general sessions from 2002 to 2015 were searched. Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were conducted to match full-text publications for conference abstracts. Two investigators extracted basic characteristics and assessed the consistency and reporting quality independently and in duplicate. The linear regression model was used to analyze the predictors of inconsistency.ResultsA total of 147 conference abstracts were matched with published articles. Results for the secondary outcome measure, Statistical analysis, and precision measure were less than 50% consistent, and even nearly 5% of the studies had opposite conclusions. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that three factors were correlated with lower inconsistency, including continent of origin (p = 0.011), presentation type (p = 0.017), and difference in reporting quality (p = 0.013).ConclusionConference attendees should cautiously treat the findings of the conference abstracts. Researchers should improve the precision of the information delivered at conferences. We recommend the authors of RCTs to explain the primary difference between conference abstracts and article abstracts.
| S-EPMC10166077 | biostudies-literature