Cargando…
Disciplinary boundaries and integrating care: using Q-methodology to understand trainee views on being a good doctor
BACKGROUND: Rising numbers of patients with multiple-conditions and complex care needs mean that it is increasingly important for doctors from different specialty areas to work together, alongside other members of the multi-disciplinary team, to provide patient centred care. However, intra-professio...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6377780/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30770777 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1493-2 |
_version_ | 1783395816420933632 |
---|---|
author | Muddiman, E. Bullock, A. D. Hampton, J. M. Allery, L. MacDonald, J. Webb, K. L. Pugsley, L. |
author_facet | Muddiman, E. Bullock, A. D. Hampton, J. M. Allery, L. MacDonald, J. Webb, K. L. Pugsley, L. |
author_sort | Muddiman, E. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Rising numbers of patients with multiple-conditions and complex care needs mean that it is increasingly important for doctors from different specialty areas to work together, alongside other members of the multi-disciplinary team, to provide patient centred care. However, intra-professional boundaries and silos within the medical profession may challenge holistic approaches to patient care. METHODS: We used Q methodology to examine how postgraduate trainees (n = 38) on a range of different specialty programmes in England and Wales could be grouped based on their rankings of 40 statements about ‘being a good doctor’. Themes covered in the Q-set include: generalism (breadth) and specialism (depth), interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinary team working, patient-centredness, and managing complex care needs. RESULTS: A by-person factor analysis enabled us to map distinct perspectives within our participant group (P-set). Despite high levels of overall commonality, three groups of trainees emerged, each with a clear perspective on being a good doctor. We describe the first group as ‘generalists’: team-players with a collegial and patient-centred approach to their role. The second group of ‘general specialists’ aspired to be specialists but with a generalist and patient-centred approach to care within their specialty area. Both these two groups can be contrasted to those in the third ‘specialist’ group, who had a more singular focus on how their specialty can help the patient. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst distinct, the priorities and values of trainees in this study share some important aspects. The results of our Q-sort analysis suggest that it may be helpful to understand the relationship between generalism and specialism as less of a dichotomy and more of a continuum that transcends primary and secondary care settings. A nuanced understanding of trainee views on being a good doctor, across different specialties, may help us to bridge gaps and foster interdisciplinary working. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6377780 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63777802019-02-27 Disciplinary boundaries and integrating care: using Q-methodology to understand trainee views on being a good doctor Muddiman, E. Bullock, A. D. Hampton, J. M. Allery, L. MacDonald, J. Webb, K. L. Pugsley, L. BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: Rising numbers of patients with multiple-conditions and complex care needs mean that it is increasingly important for doctors from different specialty areas to work together, alongside other members of the multi-disciplinary team, to provide patient centred care. However, intra-professional boundaries and silos within the medical profession may challenge holistic approaches to patient care. METHODS: We used Q methodology to examine how postgraduate trainees (n = 38) on a range of different specialty programmes in England and Wales could be grouped based on their rankings of 40 statements about ‘being a good doctor’. Themes covered in the Q-set include: generalism (breadth) and specialism (depth), interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinary team working, patient-centredness, and managing complex care needs. RESULTS: A by-person factor analysis enabled us to map distinct perspectives within our participant group (P-set). Despite high levels of overall commonality, three groups of trainees emerged, each with a clear perspective on being a good doctor. We describe the first group as ‘generalists’: team-players with a collegial and patient-centred approach to their role. The second group of ‘general specialists’ aspired to be specialists but with a generalist and patient-centred approach to care within their specialty area. Both these two groups can be contrasted to those in the third ‘specialist’ group, who had a more singular focus on how their specialty can help the patient. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst distinct, the priorities and values of trainees in this study share some important aspects. The results of our Q-sort analysis suggest that it may be helpful to understand the relationship between generalism and specialism as less of a dichotomy and more of a continuum that transcends primary and secondary care settings. A nuanced understanding of trainee views on being a good doctor, across different specialties, may help us to bridge gaps and foster interdisciplinary working. BioMed Central 2019-02-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6377780/ /pubmed/30770777 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1493-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Muddiman, E. Bullock, A. D. Hampton, J. M. Allery, L. MacDonald, J. Webb, K. L. Pugsley, L. Disciplinary boundaries and integrating care: using Q-methodology to understand trainee views on being a good doctor |
title | Disciplinary boundaries and integrating care: using Q-methodology to understand trainee views on being a good doctor |
title_full | Disciplinary boundaries and integrating care: using Q-methodology to understand trainee views on being a good doctor |
title_fullStr | Disciplinary boundaries and integrating care: using Q-methodology to understand trainee views on being a good doctor |
title_full_unstemmed | Disciplinary boundaries and integrating care: using Q-methodology to understand trainee views on being a good doctor |
title_short | Disciplinary boundaries and integrating care: using Q-methodology to understand trainee views on being a good doctor |
title_sort | disciplinary boundaries and integrating care: using q-methodology to understand trainee views on being a good doctor |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6377780/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30770777 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1493-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT muddimane disciplinaryboundariesandintegratingcareusingqmethodologytounderstandtraineeviewsonbeingagooddoctor AT bullockad disciplinaryboundariesandintegratingcareusingqmethodologytounderstandtraineeviewsonbeingagooddoctor AT hamptonjm disciplinaryboundariesandintegratingcareusingqmethodologytounderstandtraineeviewsonbeingagooddoctor AT alleryl disciplinaryboundariesandintegratingcareusingqmethodologytounderstandtraineeviewsonbeingagooddoctor AT macdonaldj disciplinaryboundariesandintegratingcareusingqmethodologytounderstandtraineeviewsonbeingagooddoctor AT webbkl disciplinaryboundariesandintegratingcareusingqmethodologytounderstandtraineeviewsonbeingagooddoctor AT pugsleyl disciplinaryboundariesandintegratingcareusingqmethodologytounderstandtraineeviewsonbeingagooddoctor |