Attitudes Towards Physicians Requiring Remediation: One-of-Us or Not-Like-Us?

Unravelling epistemic injustice in medical education: The case of the underperforming learner

CONTEXT

Epistemic injustice refers to a wrong done to someone in their capacity as a knower. While philosophers have detailed the pervasiveness of this issue within healthcare, it is only beginning to be discussed by medical educators. The purpose of this article is to expand the field's understanding of this concept and to demonstrate how it can be used to reframe complex problems in medical education.

METHODS

After outlining the basic features of epistemic injustice, we clarify its intended (and unintended) meaning and detail what is required for a perceived harm to be named an epistemic injustice. Using an example from our own work on introversion in undergraduate medical education, we illustrate what epistemic injustice might look like from the perspectives of both educators and students and show how the concept can reorient our perspective on academic underperformance.

RESULTS

Epistemic injustice results from two things: (1) social power dynamics that give some individuals control over others, and (2) identity prejudice that is associated with discriminatory stereotypes. This can lead to one, or both, forms of epistemic injustice: testimonial and hermeneutical. Our worked example demonstrates how medical educators can be unaware of when and how epistemic injustice is happening, yet the effects on students' well-being and sense of selves can be profound. Thinking about academic underperformance with epistemic injustice in mind can reveal an emphasis within current educational practices on diagnosing learning deficiencies, to the detriment of holistically representing its socially constructed and structural nature.

CONCLUSIONS

This article builds upon recent calls to recognise epistemic injustice in medical education by clarifying its terminology and intended use and providing in-depth application and analysis to a particular case: underperformance and the introverted medical student. Equipped with a more sophisticated understanding of the term, medical educators may be able to re-conceptualise long-standing issues including, but also beyond, underperformance.

When Feedback is Not Perceived as Feedback: Challenges for Regulatory Body-Mandated Peer Review

PURPOSE

Safe and competent patient care depends on physicians recognizing and correcting performance deficiencies. Generating effective insight depends on feedback from credible sources. Unfortunately, physicians often have limited access to meaningful guidance. To facilitate quality improvement, many regulatory authorities have designed peer-facilitated practice enhancement programs. Their mandate to ensure practice quality, however, can create tension between formative intentions and risk (perceived or otherwise) of summative repercussions. This study explored how physicians engage with feedback when required to undergo review.

METHOD

Between October 2018 and May 2020, 30 physicians representing various specialties and career stages were interviewed about their experiences with peer review in the context of regulatory body-mandated programs. Twenty had been reviewees and reviewers and, hence, spoke from both vantage points. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a 3-stage coding process informed by constructivist grounded theory.

RESULTS

Perceptions about the learning value of mandated peer review were mixed. Most saw value but felt anxiety about being selected due to being wary of regulatory bodies. Recognizing barriers such perceptions could create, reviewers described techniques for optimizing the value of interactions with reviewees. Their strategies aligned well with the R2C2 feedback and coaching model with which they had been trained but did not always overcome reviewees' concerns. Reasons included that most feedback was "validating," aimed at "tweaks" rather than substantial change.

CONCLUSIONS

This study establishes an intriguing and challenging paradox: feedback appears often to not be recognized as feedback when it poses no threat, yet feedback that carries such threat is known to be suboptimal for inducing performance improvement. In efforts to reconcile that tension, the authors suggest that peer review for individuals with a high likelihood of strong performance may be more effective if expectations are managed through feedforward rather than feedback.

KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS OF REMEDIATION AMONG TRAINEES IN GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

BACKGROUND

Remediation of medical trainees is a universal challenge, yet studies show that many residents will need remediation to improve performance. Current literature discusses the importance and processes of remediation and investigates how to recognize residents needing remediation. However, little is known about trainees' attitudes and perception of remediation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess trainees' knowledge of remediation as well as their attitudes and perceptions toward remediation and its process. We hypothesized that trainees have limited knowledge and a negative perception of remediation.

METHODS

A cross-sectional anonymous electronic survey was sent to all graduate medical education trainees at a single institution.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 132/1095 (12.1%) trainees. Of the respondents, 7.6% were not familiar with the term "remediation." Trainees' knowledge of remediation processes was variable, and they reported overwhelmingly negative thoughts and attitudes toward remediation. Shame was felt by 97/132 (73.5%), 71/132 (53.8%) felt disadvantaged, and 121/132 (91.7%) viewed the term "remediation" negatively. Most trainees felt using a more positive term would improve perceptions, and 124/132 (93.9%) felt residents should be involved in creating individualized remediation plans. Open-ended responses on reactions to being placed on remediation included disappointment, shame, incompetency, anxiety and worry, embarrassment, unhappiness, suicidality, worthlessness, sense of failure, and doubting one's capabilities as a physician.

CONCLUSION

Trainees have limited knowledge and understanding of remediation and strong negative perceptions and attitudes toward the remediation process. Trainees suggested that reframing of remediation using more positive terminology and including residents in creating individualized plans, may improve attitudes and perceptions of this process.

The role of feedback in supporting trainees who underperform in clinical environments

Introduction

Underperformance in clinical environments can be costly and emotional for all stakeholders. Feedback is an important pedagogical strategy for working with underperformance - both formal and informal strategies can make a difference. Feedback is a typical feature of remediation programs, and yet there is little consensus on how feedback should unfold in the context of underperformance.

Methods

This narrative review synthesises literature at the intersections of feedback and underperformance in clinical environments where service, learning and safety need to be considered. We do so with a critical eye towards generating insights for working with underperformance in the clinical environment.

Synthesis and discussion

There are compounding and multi-level factors that contribute to underperformance and subsequent failure. This complexity overwrites simplistic notions of 'earned' failure through individual traits and deficit. Working with such complexity requires feedback that goes beyond educator input or 'telling'. When we shift beyond feedback as input to process, we recognise that these processes are fundamentally relational, where trust and safety are necessary for trainees to share their weaknesses and doubts. Emotions are always present and they signal action. Feedback literacy might help us consider how to engage trainees with feedback so that they take an active (autonomous) role in developing their evaluative judgements. Finally, feedback cultures can be influential and take effort to shift if at all. A key mechanism running through all these considerations of feedback is enabling internal motivation, and creating conditions for trainees to feel relatedness, competence and autonomy. Broadening our perceptions of feedback, beyond telling, might help create environments for learning to flourish.

Strangers in a strange land: The experience of physicians undergoing remediation

INTRODUCTION

The experience of remediation in practising physicians has not been widely studied. Remediatees frequently present negative emotions, but observers can only infer the underlying reasons behind these. Understanding remediatees' perspectives may help those mandating and organising remediation to structure the process in ways that improve the experience for all concerned parties and maximise chances of a successful outcome for remediatees.

METHODS

Seventeen physicians who had undergone remediation for clinical competence concerns were interviewed via telephone. Participant data were first iteratively analysed thematically and then reanalysed using a narrative mode of analysis for each participant in order to understand the stories as wholes. Figured worlds (FW) theory was used as a lens for analysing the data for this constructivist research study.

RESULTS

Participants entering the FW of remediation perceived that their position as a 'good doctor' was threatened. Lacking experience with this world and with little available support to help them navigate it, participants used their agency to draw on various discursive threads within the FW to construct a narrative account of their remediation. In their narratives, participants tended to position themselves either as victims of regulatory bodies or as resilient individuals who could make the best of a difficult situation. In both cases, the chosen discursive threads enabled them to maintain their self-identity as 'good doctor'.

CONCLUSION

Remediation poses a threat to a physician's professional and personal identity. Focusing mainly on the educational aspect of remediation-that is, the improvement in knowledge and skills-risks missing its impact on physician identity. We need to ensure not only that we support physicians in dealing with this identity threat but that our assessment and remediation processes do not inadvertently encourage remediatees to draw on discursive threads that lead them to see themselves as victims.

Optimising the delivery of remediation programmes for doctors: A realist review

CONTEXT

Medical underperformance puts patient safety at risk. Remediation, the process that seeks to 'remedy' underperformance and return a doctor to safe practice, is therefore a crucially important area of medical education. However, although remediation is used in health care systems globally, there is limited evidence for the particular models or strategies employed. The purpose of this study was to conduct a realist review to ascertain why, how, in what contexts, for whom and to what extent remediation programmes for practising doctors work to restore patient safety.

METHOD

We conducted a realist literature review consistent with RAMESES standards. We developed a programme theory of remediation by carrying out a systematic search of the literature and through regular engagement with a stakeholder group. We searched bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL, ERIC, ASSIA and DARE) and conducted purposive supplementary searches. Relevant sections of text relating to the programme theory were extracted and synthesised using a realist logic of analysis to identify context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOcs).

RESULTS

A 141 records were included. The majority of the studies were from North America (64%). 29 CMOcs were identified. Remediation programmes are effective when a doctor's insight and motivation are developed and behaviour change reinforced. Insight can be developed by providing safe spaces, using advocacy to promote trust and framing feedback sensitively. Motivation can be enhanced by involving the doctor in remediation planning, correcting causal attribution, goal setting and destigmatising remediation. Sustained change can be achieved by practising new behaviours and skills, and through guided reflection.

CONCLUSION

Remediation can work when it creates environments that trigger behaviour change mechanisms. Our evidence synthesis provides detailed recommendations on tailoring implementation and design strategies to improve remediation interventions for doctors.

Unheard Voices: A Qualitative Study of Resident Perspectives on Remediation

BACKGROUND

Remediation is an important component of residency training that ensures residents are progressing toward competency and unsupervised practice. There is literature describing educators' attitudes about remediation; however, little is known about residents' perspectives regarding peers who are struggling and remediation. Understanding this perspective is critical to supporting struggling residents and developing successful remediation programs.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe residents' perspectives on peers who are struggling and remediation processes within graduate medical education programs.

METHODS

In 2015, we conducted focus groups of residents in a multi-institutional exploratory qualitative study designed to investigate resident perspectives on remediation. Focus groups included questions on identification of residents who are struggling, reasons residents face difficulty in training, attitudes toward remediation, and understanding of the remediation process. Using conventional content analysis, we analyzed the focus group data to discover common themes.

RESULTS

Eight focus groups were performed at 3 geographically distinct institutions. A total of 68 residents participated, representing 12 distinct medical specialties. Four major themes emerged from the participants' discussion: lack of transparency, negative stigma, overwhelming emotions, and a need for change.

CONCLUSIONS

Resident perspectives on remediation are affected by communication, culture, and emotions. The resident participants called for change, seeking greater understanding and transparency about what it means to struggle and the process of remediation. The residents also believed that remediation can be embraced and normalized.

Remediation programmes for practising doctors to restore patient safety: the RESTORE realist review

Background

An underperforming doctor puts patient safety at risk. Remediation is an intervention intended to address underperformance and return a doctor to safe practice. Used in health-care systems all over the world, it has clear implications for both patient safety and doctor retention in the workforce. However, there is limited evidence underpinning remediation programmes, particularly a lack of knowledge as to why and how a remedial intervention may work to change a doctor’s practice.

Objectives

To (1) conduct a realist review of the literature to ascertain why, how, in what contexts, for whom and to what extent remediation programmes for practising doctors work to restore patient safety; and (2) provide recommendations on tailoring, implementation and design strategies to improve remediation interventions for doctors.

Design

A realist review of the literature underpinned by the Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards quality and reporting standards.

Data sources

Searches of bibliographic databases were conducted in June 2018 using the following databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Education Resources Information Center, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, and Health Management Information Consortium. Grey literature searches were conducted in June 2019 using the following: Google Scholar (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA), OpenGrey, NHS England, North Grey Literature Collection, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence, Electronic Theses Online Service, Health Systems Evidence and Turning Research into Practice. Further relevant studies were identified via backward citation searching, searching the libraries of the core research team and through a stakeholder group.

Review methods

Realist review is a theory-orientated and explanatory approach to the synthesis of evidence that seeks to develop programme theories about how an intervention produces its effects. We developed a programme theory of remediation by convening a stakeholder group and undertaking a systematic search of the literature. We included all studies in the English language on the remediation of practising doctors, all study designs, all health-care settings and all outcome measures. We extracted relevant sections of text relating to the programme theory. Extracted data were then synthesised using a realist logic of analysis to identify context–mechanism–outcome configurations.

Results

A total of 141 records were included. Of the 141 studies included in the review, 64% related to North America and 14% were from the UK. The majority of studies (72%) were published between 2008 and 2018. A total of 33% of articles were commentaries, 30% were research papers, 25% were case studies and 12% were other types of articles. Among the research papers, 64% were quantitative, 19% were literature reviews, 14% were qualitative and 3% were mixed methods. A total of 40% of the articles were about junior doctors/residents, 31% were about practicing physicians, 17% were about a mixture of both (with some including medical students) and 12% were not applicable. A total of 40% of studies focused on remediating all areas of clinical practice, including medical knowledge, clinical skills and professionalism. A total of 27% of studies focused on professionalism only, 19% focused on knowledge and/or clinical skills and 14% did not specify. A total of 32% of studies described a remediation intervention, 16% outlined strategies for designing remediation programmes, 11% outlined remediation models and 41% were not applicable. Twenty-nine context–mechanism–outcome configurations were identified. Remediation programmes work when they develop doctors’ insight and motivation, and reinforce behaviour change. Strategies such as providing safe spaces, using advocacy to develop trust in the remediation process and carefully framing feedback create contexts in which psychological safety and professional dissonance lead to the development of insight. Involving the remediating doctor in remediation planning can provide a perceived sense of control in the process and this, alongside correcting causal attribution, goal-setting, destigmatising remediation and clarity of consequences, helps motivate doctors to change. Sustained change may be facilitated by practising new behaviours and skills and through guided reflection.

Limitations

Limitations were the low quality of included literature and limited number of UK-based studies.

Future work

Future work should use the recommendations to optimise the delivery of existing remediation programmes for doctors in the NHS.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018088779.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

What's in a Name?

None

Focal Length Fluidity: Research Questions in Medical Education Research and Scholarship

Research and scholarship in health professions education has been shaped by intended audience (i.e., producers vs users) and the purpose of research questions (i.e., curiosity driven or service oriented), but these archetypal dichotomies do not represent the breadth of scholarship in the field. Akin to an array of lenses required by scientists to capture images of a black hole, the authors propose the analogy of lenses with different focal lengths to consider how different kinds of research questions can offer insight into health professions research-a microscope, a magnifying glass, binoculars, and telescopes allow us to ask and answer different kinds of research questions. They argue for the relevance of all of the different kinds of research questions (or focal lengths); each provides important insight into a particular phenomenon and contributes to understanding that phenomenon in a different way. The authors propose that research questions can move fluidly across focal lengths. For example, a theoretical question can be made more pragmatic through asking "how" questions ("How can we observe and measure a phenomenon?"), whereas a pragmatic question can be made more theoretic by asking a series of "why" questions ("Why are these findings relevant to larger issues?"). In summary, only through the combination of lenses with different focal lengths, brought to bear through interdisciplinary work, can we fully comprehend important phenomena in health professions education and scholarship-the same way scientists managed to image a black hole.