Medical students' action plans are not specific

The behaviours identified and the behaviour change techniques planned in health partnerships for antimicrobial stewardship

Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions promote optimised use of antimicrobials by healthcare professionals. In 2019-2020, the Commonwealth Partnerships for Antimicrobial Stewardship (CwPAMS) supported 12 global health partnerships in low- and middle-income countries to co-develop education and training interventions to improve AMS practices amongst hospital staff. This study aimed to describe six of the CwPAMS health partnerships' target behaviours and behaviour change techniques (BCTs) within their planned AMS interventions. Content analysis extracted behaviours and BCTs from partnership materials. Techniques used by partnerships with (n = 2) and without (n = 4) an embedded behavioural scientist were compared, to understand their added value. Nineteen AMS related behaviours for hospital staff were targeted; most commonly hand hygiene and antibiotic prescribing behaviours. Twenty-three BCTs were coded, with instructing participants on how to perform the behaviours the most prominent across all, including partnerships with a behavioural scientist. Intervention materials did not always report the context of the intervention being delivered, including who was delivering it and the target. Behaviours for change were also often not specified. Partnerships varied in reporting their content and specific behaviours, impacting replicability of their interventions, and limiting knowledge exchange. An AMS behaviour change intervention resource is recommended to support clear specification of prospective AMS interventions.

Coaching to improve self-directed learning

BACKGROUND

The continuously changing health care context necesitates that medical trainees develop self-directed learning skills. This study examined the effect of coaching on the self-directed learning process in pre-clerkship medical students.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal educational intervention using standardised patient assessments to determine the effect of self-assessment, feedback, and coaching on the development and implementation of learning goals (LGs). Students were sorted into control and intervention groups. Following each assessment, students received feedback on performance and created LGs. Students in the intervention group worked with a faculty member coach on their LGs. Students in the control group developed their LGs without a coach. Prior to the final assessment, students reported whether they had implemented their LGs.

RESULTS

Of 171 students enrolled, 167 completed all four assessments and were included. All 167 developed an LG after each assessment. Overall, 79.0% of students reported implementing an LG. Of students receiving coaching, 91.8% implemented an LG, whereas only 65.9% of students in the control group implemented an LG (odds ratio, OR 5.7; 95% confidence interval, CI 2.4-14.2). Students who received coaching were more likely to incorporate performance feedback into their LGs (90.2 versus 38.1%; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For students, faculty member coaching facilitated better LG development and more frequent implementation compared with students who did not receive coaching.