Benefits and challenges of multi-level learner rural general practices – an interview study with learners, staff and patients

BMC Medical Education

Debra Nestel²  Melanie Bryant⁴  James Brown³  Tracy Morrison¹ 

[1] Victoria University, Osteopathic discipline, College of Health and Biomedicine, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia;Monash University, School of Rural Health, HeathPEER, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Clayton, Victoria, Australia;Southern General Practice Training, Churchill, Victoria, Australia;Swinburne University of Technology, Swinburne Business School, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia

关键词: Medical students;    Interns;    Registrars;    Education;    Rural general practice;    Vertical integration;    Multi-level learners;   

Others  :  1090308
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-14-234

 received in 2014-01-30, accepted in 2014-10-08,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

General practices vary in the provision of training and education. Some practices have training as a major focus with the presence of multi-level learners and others host single learner groups or none at all. This study investigates the educational benefits and challenges associated with ‘multi-level learner’ practices.

Methods

This paper comprised three case studies of rural general practices with multiple levels of learners. Qualitative data were collected from 29 interviews with learners (n = 12), staff (n = 12) and patients (n = 5). Interviews were initially analyzed using open and axial coding and thematic analysis.

Results

Thematic analysis showed ‘multi-level learning’ in general practices has benefits and challenges to learners and the practice. Learner benefits included knowledge exchange, the opportunity for vertical peer learning, a positive learning environment and the development of a supportive network. The presence of multi-level learners promoted sharing of knowledge with all staff, a sense of community, an increase in patient services and enthused supervisors. Challenges for learners included perception of decreased access to supervisors, anxiety with peer observation, reduced access to patient presentations and patient reluctance to be seen by a learner. Practice challenges were administration requirements, high learner turnover, infrastructure requirements and the requirement for supervisors to cater to a range of learner level needs.

Conclusions

The presence of medical students, interns and registrars in general practice has educational benefits to the learners extending to the other stakeholders (staff and patients). Multi-level learners present challenges to the learners and the practice by increasing pressures on resources, staff (administrative and supervisors) and infrastructure.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Morrison et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Larsen K, Perkins D: Training doctors in general practices: a review of the literature. Aust J Rural Health 2006, 14:173-177.
• [2]Mathers J, Parry J, Lewis S, Greenfield S: What impact will an increased number of teaching general practices have on patients, doctors and medical students? Med Educ 2004, 38:1219-1228.
• [3]O'Flynn N, Spencer J, Jones R: Does teaching during a general practice consultation affect patient care? Br J Gen Pract 1999, 49:7-9.
• [4]Price R, Spencer J, Walker J: Does the presence of medical students affect quality in general practice consultations? Med Educ 2008, 42:374-381.
• [5]Sturman N, Régo P, Dick M-L: Rewards, costs and challenges: the general practitioner’s experience of teaching medical students. Med Educ 2011, 45:722-730.
• [6]van der Zwet J, Hanssen VGA, Zwietering PJ, Muijtjens AMM, Van der Vleuten CPM, Metsemakers JFM, Scherpbier AJJA: Workplace learning in general practice: supervision, patient mix and independence emerge from the black box once again. Med Teach 2010, 32:e294-e299.
• [7]van der Zwet J, Zwietering PJ, Teunissen PW, van der Vleuten CPM, Scherpbier AJJA: Workplace learning from a socio-cultural perspective: creating developmental space during the general practice clerkship. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2011, 16:359-373.
• [8]Buchanan J, Lane P: Grouping specialty registrars in practice placements: a qualitative study. Educ Prim Care 2008, 19:143-150.
• [9]Dodd J: General practice registrar teaching roles. Aust Fam Physician 2009, 38:77-80.
• [10]Grinzi P: Teaching and learning in general practice. Aust Fam Physician 2004, 33:677.
• [11]Kramer J: Teaching and learning in rural general practice. Aust Fam Physician 2004, 33:737-738.
• [12]Pearce R, Laurence C, Blacj L, Stocks N: The challenges of teaching in a general practice setting. Med J Aust 2007, 187:129-132.
• [13]Laurence C, Black L: Teaching capacity in general practice: results from a survey of practices and supervisors in South Australia. Med J Aust 2009, 191:102-104.
• [14]Laurence C, Black L, Cheah C, Karnon J: Is different better? Models of teaching and their influence on the net financial outcome for general practice teaching posts. BMC Med Educ 2011, 11:45. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Laurence C, Black L, Karnon J, Briggs N: To teach or not to teach ? A cost benefit analysis of teaching in private general practice. Med J Aust 2010, 193:608-613.
• [16]Pearson D, Lucas B: What are the key elements of a primary care teaching practice? Educ Prim Care 2011, 22:159-165.
• [17]Ahern C, van de Mortel T, Silberberg P, Barling J, Pit S: Vertically integrated shared learning models in general practice: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract 2013, 14:1-11. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]van de Mortel TF, Silberberg P, Ahern C: Stakeholders’ perceptions of facilitators of, and barriers to, shared learning in general practice. Aust Fam Physician 2013, 42:147-151.
• [19]Pearson DJ, Lucas BJ: Engagement and opportunity in clinical learning: findings from a case study in primary care. Med Teach 2011, 33:e670-e677.
• [20]O'Regan A, Culhane A, Dunne C, Griffin M, Meagher D, McGrath D, O'Dwyer P, Cullen W: Towards vertical integration in general practice education: literature review and discussion paper. Ir J Med Sci 2012. doi:10.1007/s11845-012-0893-7
• [21]Stocks NP, Frank O, Linn AM, Anderson K, Meertens S: Vertical integration of teaching in Australian general practice–a survey of regional training providers. Med J Aust 2011, 194:S75-S78.
• [22]Anderson K, Thomson J: Vertical intergration. Reducing the load on GP teachers. Aust Fam Physician 2009, 30:907-910.
• [23]Dick MLB, King DB, Mitchell GK, Kelly GD, Buckley JF, Garside SJ: Vertical integration in teaching and learning (VITAL): an approach to medical education in general practice. Med J Aust 2007, 187:133-135.
• [24]Glasgow N, Trumble S: Final Report on the Case Studies of Vertical Integration for the AAAGP/ADGP GPET Working Party. In Book Final Report on the Case Studies of Vertical Integration for the AAAGP/ADGP GPET Working Party. City: General Practice Education and Training; 2003.
• [25]Stake RE: Qualitative Case Studies. In Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Edited by Denzin N, Lincoln Y. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2008.
• [26]Denzin N, Lincoln Y: Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. In The Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd edition. Edited by Denzin N, Lincoln Y. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2005:1-32.
• [27]Morrow S: Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. J Couns Psychol 2005, 52:250-260.
• [28]Mays N, Pope C: Qualitative research in health care - Assessing quality in qualitative research. Br Med J 2000, 320:50-52.
• [29]Miles H: Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 1994.
• [30]Boud D, Cohen R, Sampson J: Peer Learning in Higher Education: Learning from and With Each Other. London: Kogan Page Limited; 2001.
• [31]Buckley S, Zamora J: Effects of participation in a cross year peer tutoring programme in clinical examination skills on volunteer tutors’ skills and attitudes towards teachers and teaching. BMC Med Educ 2007, 7:20. BioMed Central Full Text
• [32]Dannefer EF, Henson LC, Bierer SB, Grady-Weliky TA, Meldrum S, Nofziger AC, Barclay C, Epstein RM: Peer assessment of professional competence. Med Educ 2005, 39:713-722.
• [33]Govindan VK: Enhancing communication skills using an OSCE and peer review. Med Educ 2008, 42:535-536.
• [34]Larsen T, Jeppe-Jensen D: The introduction and perception of an OSCE with an element of self- and peer-assessment. Eur J Dent Educ 2008, 12:2-7.
• [35]Nestel D, Kidd J: Peer tutoring in patient-centred interviewing skills: experience of a project for first-year students. Med Teach 2003, 25:398-403.
• [36]Nestel D, Kidd J: Peer assisted learning in patient-centred interviewing: the impact on student tutors. Med Teach 2005, 27:439-444.
• [37]Kneebone R: Perspective: simulation and transformational change: the paradox of expertise. Acad Med 2009, 84:954-957.