Muddiman E, Bullock AD, Hampton JM, Allery L, MacDonald J, Webb KL, Pugsley L. Disciplinary boundaries and integrating care: using Q-methodology to understand trainee views on being a good doctor.
BMC Med Educ 2019;
19:59. [PMID:
30770777 PMCID:
PMC6377780 DOI:
10.1186/s12909-019-1493-2]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/23/2017] [Accepted: 02/12/2019] [Indexed: 05/10/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse