Navigating complexity in team‐based clinical settings.
Saved in:
| Title: | Navigating complexity in team‐based clinical settings. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | LaDonna, Kori A, Field, Emily, Watling, Christopher, Lingard, Lorelei, Haddara, Wael, Cristancho, Sayra M |
| Source: | Medical Education. Nov2018, Vol. 52 Issue 11, p1125-1137. 13p. 4 Illustrations. |
| Subjects: | Attitude (Psychology), Expertise, Grounded theory, Health care teams, Interviewing, Research methodology, Medical care, Medical personnel, Negotiation, Physicians' attitudes |
| Abstract: | Context: Educators must prepare learners to navigate the complexities of clinical care. Training programmes have, however, traditionally prioritised teaching around the biomedical and the technical, not the socio‐relational or systems issues that create complexity. If we are to transform medical education to meet the demands of 21st century practice, we need to understand how clinicians perceive and respond to complex situations. Methods: Constructivist grounded theory informed data collection and analysis; during semi‐structured interviews, we used rich pictures to elicit team members' perspectives about clinical complexity in neurology and in the intensive care unit. We identified themes through constant comparative analysis. Results: Routine care became complex when the prognosis was unknown, when treatment was either non‐existent or had been exhausted or when being patient and family centred challenged a system's capabilities, or participants' training or professional scope of practice. When faced with complexity, participants reported that care shifted from relying on medical expertise to engaging in advocacy. Some physician participants, however, either did not recognise their care as advocacy or perceived it as outside their scope of practice. In turn, advocacy was often delegated to others. Conclusions: Our research illuminates how expert clinicians manoeuvre moments of complexity; specifically, navigating complexity may rely on mastering health advocacy. Our results suggest that advocacy is often negotiated or collectively enacted in team settings, often with input from patients and families. In order to prepare learners to navigate complexity, we suggest that programmes situate advocacy training in complex clinical encounters, encourage reflection and engage non‐physician team members in advocacy training. The authors demonstrate that navigating clinical complexity relies heavily on advocacy, and they discuss the challenges of both enacting and teaching this critical aspect of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Medical Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Context: Educators must prepare learners to navigate the complexities of clinical care. Training programmes have, however, traditionally prioritised teaching around the biomedical and the technical, not the socio‐relational or systems issues that create complexity. If we are to transform medical education to meet the demands of 21st century practice, we need to understand how clinicians perceive and respond to complex situations. Methods: Constructivist grounded theory informed data collection and analysis; during semi‐structured interviews, we used rich pictures to elicit team members' perspectives about clinical complexity in neurology and in the intensive care unit. We identified themes through constant comparative analysis. Results: Routine care became complex when the prognosis was unknown, when treatment was either non‐existent or had been exhausted or when being patient and family centred challenged a system's capabilities, or participants' training or professional scope of practice. When faced with complexity, participants reported that care shifted from relying on medical expertise to engaging in advocacy. Some physician participants, however, either did not recognise their care as advocacy or perceived it as outside their scope of practice. In turn, advocacy was often delegated to others. Conclusions: Our research illuminates how expert clinicians manoeuvre moments of complexity; specifically, navigating complexity may rely on mastering health advocacy. Our results suggest that advocacy is often negotiated or collectively enacted in team settings, often with input from patients and families. In order to prepare learners to navigate complexity, we suggest that programmes situate advocacy training in complex clinical encounters, encourage reflection and engage non‐physician team members in advocacy training. The authors demonstrate that navigating clinical complexity relies heavily on advocacy, and they discuss the challenges of both enacting and teaching this critical aspect of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 03080110 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/medu.13671 |
