4.6 Article

Common concepts in separate domains? Family physicians' ways of understanding teaching patients and trainees, a qualitative study

Journal

BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION
Volume 15, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12909-015-0397-z

Keywords

Family medicine; Patient; Physician; Qualitative research; Trainee; Faculty development

Funding

  1. BCCFP Research Awards Fund
  2. Research & Education Foundation
  3. Faculty Development Initiatives Grant Program at University of British Columbia
  4. Royal College/Associated Medical Services CanMEDS Research and Development Grant

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Medical education is increasingly expanding into new community teaching settings and the need for clinical teachers is rising. Many physicians taking on this new role are already skilled patient educators. The purpose of this research was to explore how family physicians conceptualize teaching patients compared to the teaching of trainees. Our aim was to understand if there is any common ground between these two roles in order to support faculty development based on already existing skills. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with twenty-five family physician preceptors were conducted in Vancouver, Canada and thematically analyzed. Results: We identified four key areas of overlap between the two fields (being learner-centered; supporting the acquisition, application and integration of knowledge; role modeling and self-disclosure; and facilitating autonomy) and three areas of divergence (aim of teaching and setting the learning objectives; establishing rapport; and providing feedback). Conclusions: Finding common ground between these two teaching roles would support knowledge translation and inquiry between the domains of teaching patients and trainees. It would furthermore open up new avenues for improving training and practice for clinical teachers by better linking faculty development and continuing medical education (CME).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available