Disciplinary boundaries and integrating care: using Q-methodology to understand trainee views on being a good doctor

BACKGROUND

Rising numbers of patients with multiple-conditions and complex care needs mean that it is increasingly important for doctors from different specialty areas to work together, alongside other members of the multi-disciplinary team, to provide patient centred care. However, intra-professional boundaries and silos within the medical profession may challenge holistic approaches to patient care.

METHODS

We used Q methodology to examine how postgraduate trainees (n = 38) on a range of different specialty programmes in England and Wales could be grouped based on their rankings of 40 statements about 'being a good doctor'. Themes covered in the Q-set include: generalism (breadth) and specialism (depth), interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinary team working, patient-centredness, and managing complex care needs.

RESULTS

A by-person factor analysis enabled us to map distinct perspectives within our participant group (P-set). Despite high levels of overall commonality, three groups of trainees emerged, each with a clear perspective on being a good doctor. We describe the first group as 'generalists': team-players with a collegial and patient-centred approach to their role. The second group of 'general specialists' aspired to be specialists but with a generalist and patient-centred approach to care within their specialty area. Both these two groups can be contrasted to those in the third 'specialist' group, who had a more singular focus on how their specialty can help the patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst distinct, the priorities and values of trainees in this study share some important aspects. The results of our Q-sort analysis suggest that it may be helpful to understand the relationship between generalism and specialism as less of a dichotomy and more of a continuum that transcends primary and secondary care settings. A nuanced understanding of trainee views on being a good doctor, across different specialties, may help us to bridge gaps and foster interdisciplinary working.

'It's surprising how differently they treat you': a qualitative analysis of trainee reflections on a new programme for generalist doctors

OBJECTIVES

An increase in patients with long-term conditions and complex care needs presents new challenges to healthcare providers around the developed world. In response, more broad-based training programmes have developed to better prepare trainees for the changing landscape of healthcare delivery. This paper focuses on qualitative elements of a longitudinal, mixed-methods evaluation of the postgraduate, post-Foundation Broad-Based Training (BBT) programme in England. It aims to provide a qualitative analysis of trainees' evaluations of whether the programme meets its intentions to develop practitioners adept at managing complex cases, patient focused care, specialty integration and conviction in career choice. We also identify unintended consequences.

SETTING

9 focus groups of BBT trainees were held over a 12-month period. Discussions were audio-recorded and subjected to directed content analysis. Data were collected from trainees across all 7 participating regions: East Midlands; West Midlands; Severn; Northern; North Western; Yorkshire and Humber; Kent, Surry and Sussex.

PARTICIPANTS

Focus group participants (61 in total) from the first and second cohorts of BBT.

RESULTS

Evidence from trainees indicated that the programme was meeting its aims: trainees valued the extra time to decide on their onward career specialty, having a wider experience and developing a more integrated perspective. They thought of themselves as different and perceived that others they worked alongside also saw them as different. Being different meant benefitting from novel training experiences and opportunities for self-development. However, unintended consequences were feelings of isolation, and uncertainty about professional identity.

CONCLUSIONS

By spanning boundaries between specialties, trainee generalists have the potential to improve experiences and outcomes for patients with complex health needs. However, the sense of isolation will inhibit this potential. We employ the concept of 'belongingness' to identify challenges related to the implementation of generalist training programmes within existing structures of healthcare provision.

Ready, steady, go! What do histopathology trainees think they need from training to enable them to develop autonomy in surgical pathology reporting?

AIMS

This is a qualitative study of the perceived learning needs of trainees for graded responsibility in histopathological training in the UK.

METHODS

A focus group with trainees and interviews with consultants was carried out. Participants were asked 'What do you perceive are the learning needs of histopathology trainees to develop skills for safe and confident independent reporting in surgical histopathology?' Data was analysed using open coding content analysis for items relating to training content and structure.

RESULTS

Trainees and consultants perceived a need for a case load of around 100 specimens per week with a continuously variable case mix. It was thought necessary to be the principal presenter of cases at multidisciplinary team meetings. There was a perceived need for adequate amounts of supervision by consultants using double-headed microscopes and sufficient time to develop skills in microscopic visual perception through detailed feature discussion, not necessarily related to specific diagnoses. Being able to write clear histopathology reports, developing the ability to recognise normal histology and to be aware of diagnostic pitfalls were also thought to be important.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings may inform efficacious implementation of graded responsibility in histopathology departments and be used as a sound basis for further research.