Premium
How do doctors use information in real‐time? A qualitative study of internal medicine resident precepting
Author(s) -
Tilburt Jon C.,
Goold Susan D.,
Siddiqui Nazema,
Mangrulkar Rajesh S.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
journal of evaluation in clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.737
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2753
pISSN - 1356-1294
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00752.x
Subject(s) - context (archaeology) , information exchange , medical education , qualitative research , deliberation , observational study , psychology , ambulatory , medicine , family medicine , computer science , sociology , paleontology , telecommunications , social science , politics , political science , law , biology
Background Despite the importance of evidence‐based medicine in medical education, little observational research exists on how doctors‐in‐training seek and use evidence from information resources in ambulatory care. Objective To describe information exchange behaviour by internal medicine residents and attendings in ambulatory resident clinic precepting rooms. Design We observed resident behaviour and audiotaped resident–attending doctor interactions during precepting sessions. Participants Participating residents included 70 of an eligible 89 residents and 28 of 34 eligible attendings from one large academic internal medicine residency programme in the Midwestern USA. Residents were observed during 95 separate precepting interactions at four ambulatory sites. Approach Using a qualitative approach, we analysed transcripts and field notes of observed behaviours and interactions looking for themes of information exchange. Coders discussed themes which were refined using feedback from an interdisciplinary panel. Results Four themes of information exchange behaviour emerged: (i) questioning behaviours that were used as part of the communication process in which the resident and attending doctor could reason together; (ii) searching behaviour of non‐human knowledge sources occurred in a minority of precepting interations; (iii) unsolicited knowledge offering and (iv) answering behaviours were important means of exchanging information. Conclusions Most clinic interactions between resident and attending doctors relied heavily on spoken deliberation without resorting to the scientific literature or other published information resources. These observations suggest a range of factors that may moderate information exchange behaviour in the precepting context including relationships, space and efficiency. Future research should aim to more readily adapt information resources to the relationships and practice context of precepting.