Perceptions of the effectiveness of using patient encounter data as an education and reflection tool in general practice training
Linda Klein
1 2 * , Michael Bentley 3 , Dominica Moad 1 2 , Alison Fielding 1 2 , Amanda Tapley 1 2 , Mieke van Driel 4 , Andrew Davey 1 2 , Ben Mundy 1 2 , Kristen FitzGerald 3 , Jennifer Taylor 2 , Racheal Norris 1 2 , Elizabeth Holliday 1 , Parker Magin 1 2
1 School of Medicine and Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.
2 GP Synergy, NSW and ACT Research and Evaluation Unit, Level 1, 20 McIntosh Drive, Mayfield West, NSW 2304, Australia.
3 General Practice Training Tasmania, Level 3, RACT House, 179 Murray Street, Hobart, Tas. 7000, Australia.
4 General Practice Clinical Unit, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, 288 Herston Road, Brisbane, Qld 4006, Australia.
Abstract
Patient encounter tools provide feedback and potentially reflection on general practitioner (GP) registrars’ in-practice learning and may contribute to the formative assessment of clinical competencies. However, little is known about the perceived utility of such tools.
To investigate the perceived utility of a patient encounter tool by GP registrars, their supervisors, and medical educators (MEs).
General practice registrars, supervisors and MEs from two Australian regional training organisations completed a cross-sectional questionnaire. Registrars rated how Registrar Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT), a patient encounter tool, influenced their reflection on, and change in, clinical practice, learning and training. Supervisors’ and MEs’ perceptions provided contextual information about understanding their registrars’ clinical practice, learning and training needs.
Questionnaires were completed by 48% of registrars (n = 90), 22% of supervisors (n = 182), and 61% of MEs (n = 62). Most registrars agreed that ReCEnT helped them reflect on their clinical practice (79%), learning needs (69%) and training needs (72%). Many registrars reported changing their clinical practice (54%) and learning approaches (51%). Fewer (37%) agreed that ReCEnT influenced them to change their training plans. Most supervisors (68%) and MEs (82%) agreed ReCEnT reports helped them better understand their registrars’ clinical practice. Similarly, most supervisors (63%) and MEs (68%) agreed ReCEnT reports helped them better understand their registrars’ learning and training needs.
ReCEnT can prompt self-reflection among registrars, leading to changes in clinical practice, learning approaches and training plans. Reaching its potential as an assessment for learning (as opposed to an assessment of learning) requires effective engagement between registrars, their supervisors and MEs.
Keywords: clinical practice, general practice registrars, health care education, patient encounter data, performance and evaluation, primary health care, professional education, programmatic assessment, reflective practice.
References
1 Hays RB, Morgan S. Australian and overseas models of general practice training. Med J Aust 2011; 194(11): S63-4 PMID: 21644855.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
2 Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. The Clinical Competencies for the CCE. East Melbourne, Vic.: Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; 2021. Available at https://www.racgp.org.au/education/registrars/fracgp-exams/clinical-competency-exam/the-clinical-competencies-for-the-cce/the-clinical-competencies-for-the-cce [accessed 21 December 2022].
4 van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT, Driessen EW, et al. A model for programmatic assessment fit for purpose. Med Teach 2012; 34(3): 205-14.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
5 van der Vleuten CPM, Schuwirth LWT, Driessen EW, et al. Twelve tips for programmatic assessment. Med Teach 2015; 37(7): 641-6.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
6 GPEx. Workplace-Based Assessment Framework for General Practice Training and Education. Adelaide, SA: GPEx; 2019. Available at https://gpex.com.au/developing-an-evidence-based-practical-and-contextualised-workplace-based-assessment-framework/ [accessed 21 December 2022].
7 Schuwirth LWT, van der Vleuten CPM. Programmatic assessment: from assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Med Teach 2011; 33(6): 478-85.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
8 Schut S, Maggio LA, Heeneman S, et al. Where the rubber meets the road — An integrative review of programmatic assessment in health care professions education. Perspect Med Educ 2021; 10(1): 6-13.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
9 Lockyer J, Carraccio C, Chan M-K, et al. Core principles of assessment in competency-based medical education. Med Teach 2017; 39(6): 609-16.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
10 de Jong J, Visser M, Van Dijk N, et al. A systematic review of the relationship between patient mix and learning in work-based clinical settings. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 24. Med Teach 2013; 35(6): e1181-96.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
11 de Jong J, Visser MR, Mohrs J, et al. Opening the black box: the patient mix of GP trainees. Br J Gen Pract 2011; 61(591): e650-7.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
12 Flottorp SA, Jamtvedt G, Gibis B, et al. Using audit and feedback to health professionals to improve the quality and safety of health care. World Health Organization; 2010. Available at https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/332014 [accessed 21 December 2022].
13 Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 2012(6): CD000259.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
14 van Braak M, Visser M, Holtrop M, et al. What motivates general practitioners to change practice behaviour? A qualitative study of audit and feedback group sessions in Dutch general practice. BMJ Open 2019; 9(5): e025286.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
15 Brehaut JC, Colquhoun HL, Eva KW, et al. Practice feedback interventions: 15 suggestions for optimizing effectiveness. Ann Intern Med 2016; 164(6): 435-41.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
16 Sargeant J, Lockyer J, Mann K, et al. Facilitated reflective performance feedback: developing an evidence-and theory-based model that builds relationship, explores reactions and content, and coaches for performance change (R2C2). Acad Med 2015; 90(12): 1698-706.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
18 Davey A, Tapley A, van Driel M, et al. The registrar clinical encounters in training (ReCEnT) cohort study: updated protocol. BMC Prim Care 2022; 23: 328.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
19 Taylor R, Clarke L, Radloff A. Australian General Practice Training Program: National report on the 2021 National Registrar Survey. Australian Council for Educational Research; 2021. Available at https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1076&context=higher_education [accessed 21 December 2022].
20 Morgan S, Henderson K, et al. How we use patient encounter data for reflective learning in family medicine training. Med Teach 2015; 37(10): 897-900.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
21 Teunissen PW, Kogan JR, Ten Cate O, et al. Learning in practice: a valuation of context in time-variable medical training. Acad Med 2018; 93(3): S22-6.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
22 Bok HGJ, Teunissen PW, Favier RP, et al. Programmatic assessment of competency-based workplace learning: when theory meets practice. BMC Med Educ 2013; 13: 123.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
23 Winkel AF, Yingling S, Jones A-A, et al. Reflection as a learning tool in graduate medical education: a systematic review. J Grad Med Educ 2017; 9(4): 430-9.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
24 Mann KV. Reflection’s role in learning: increasing engagement and deepening participation. Perspect Med Educ 2016; 5(5): 259-61.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
25 Embo MPC, Driessen E, Valcke M, et al. Scaffolding reflective learning in clinical practice. Med Teach 2014; 36(7): 602-7.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
26 Magin P, Morgan S, Henderson K, et al. The Registrars’ Clinical Encounters in Training (ReCEnT) project: educational and research aspects of documenting general practice trainees’ clinical experience. Aust Fam Physician 2015; 44(9): 681-4 https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.513249323722850.
| Google Scholar |
27 Garth B, Kirby C, Silberberg P, et al. Utility of learning plans in general practice vocational training: a mixed-methods national study of registrar, supervisor, and educator perspectives. BMC Med Educ 2016; 16: 211.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
28 De la Croix A, Veen M. The reflective zombie: problematizing the conceptual framework of reflection in medical education. Perspect Med Educ 2018; 7(6): 394-400.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
29 Pelgrim EAM, Kramer AWM, Mokkink HGA, et al. The process of feedback in workplace‐based assessment: organisation, delivery, continuity. Med Educ 2012; 46(6): 604-12.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
30 Sturman N, Fitzmaurice L, Ingham G, et al. Getting good help: a guide for reflection, debriefing and feedback conversations about in-consultation supervision. Educ Prim Care 2021; 32(2): 118-22.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
31 Wearne S, Brown J. GP supervisors assessing GP registrars – theory and practice. Aust Fam Physician 2014; 43(12): 887-91 PMID: 25705742.
| Google Scholar |
32 Webb ME, Fluck A, Magenheim J, et al. Machine learning for human learners: opportunities, issues, tensions and threats. Educ Technol Res Dev 2021; 69(4): 2109-30.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
33 Tran M, Wearne S, Tapley A, et al. Transitions in general practice training: quantifying epidemiological variation in trainees’ experiences and clinical behaviours. BMC Med Educ 2022; 22: 124.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
34 Mann K, Gordon J, MacLeod A. Reflection and reflective practice in health professions education: a systematic review. Adv Health Sci Educ 2009; 14(4): 595-621 PMID: 18034364.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
35 White I, Benson J, Elliott T, et al. Australian general practice registrars’ experiences of training, well-being and support during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study. BMJ Open 2022; 12(6): e060307.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
36 Snoswell CL, Caffery LJ, Haydon HM, et al. Telehealth uptake in general practice as a result of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Aust Health Rev 2020; 44(5): 737-40.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
37 Taylor A, Caffery LJ, Gesesew HA, et al. How Australian health care services adapted to telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey of telehealth professionals. Front Public Health 2021; 9: 648009.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
38 Bonevski B, Magin P, Horton G, et al. Response rates in GP surveys: trialling two recruitment strategies. Aust Fam Physician 2011; 40(6): 427-30 PMID: 21655493.
| Google Scholar |
