Striking fear into students’ hearts: Unforeseen consequences of prescribing education
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: Undergraduate medical education (UGME) has to prepare students to do safety-critical work (notably, to prescribe) immediately after qualifying. Despite hospitals depending on them, medical graduates consistently report feeling unprepared to prescribe and they sometimes harm patients. Research clarifying how to prepare students better could improve healthcare safety. Our aim was to explore how students experienced preparing for one of their commonest prescribing tasks: intravenous fluid therapy (IVFT). METHODS: Complexity assumptions guided the research, which used a qualitative methodology oriented towards hermeneutic phenomenology. The study design was an uncontrolled and unplanned complex intervention: judicial review of the iatrogenic death of five children due to hyponatraemia in our region had resulted in the recommendation that students' education in 'the implementation of important clinical guidelines' relevant to fluid and electrolyte balance should be intensified. An opportunity sample of 40 final-year medical students drew and gave audio-recorded commentaries on rich pictures. We completed two template analyses: one of participants' transcribed commentaries on the pictures and one using a novel heuristic to analyse the pictures themselves. We then reconciled the two analyses into a single template. RESULTS: There were four themes: affects, teaching and learning, contradictions, and the curriculum as a journey. To explore interconnections between themes, we chose the picture best exemplifying each of the four themes and interpreted the curriculum journey depicted in each of them. These interpretations were grounded in each participant's picture, verbal account of the picture, and the aggregate findings of the template analysis. Participants' experiences were influenced by the situated complexity of IVFT. Layered on top of that, contradictions, overlaps, and gaps within the curriculum introduced extraneous complexity. Confusion and apprehension resulted. CONCLUSIONS: After spending five years preparing to prescribe IVFT, participants felt unprepared to do so. We conclude that intensive teaching had not achieved its avowed goal of improving students' preparedness for safe practice. Merton's seminal work on the 'unanticipated consequences of purposive social action' suggests that intensive teaching may even have contributed to their unpreparedness.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».