Plant Jennifer, Li Su-Ting T, Blankenburg Rebecca, Bogetz Alyssa L, Long Michele, Butani Lavjay
J. Plant is associate professor, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California. S.T. Li is associate professor, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California. R. Blankenburg is associate professor, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. A.L. Bogetz is associate program director and education program developer, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. M. Long is associate professor, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. L. Butani is professor, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California.
Acad Med. 2017 Nov;92(11S Association of American Medical Colleges Learn Serve Lead: Proceedings of the 56th Annual Research in Medical Education Sessions):S75-S83. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001910.
To explore when and in what form pediatric faculty and residents practice reflection.
From February to June 2015, the authors conducted focus groups of pediatric faculty and residents at the University of California, Davis; Stanford University; and the University of California, San Francisco, until thematic saturation occurred. Transcripts were analyzed based on Mezirow's and Schon's models of reflection, using the constant comparative method associated with grounded theory. Two investigators independently coded transcripts and reconciled codes to develop themes. All investigators reviewed the codes and developed a final list of themes through consensus. Through iterative discussions, investigators developed a conceptual model of reflection in the clinical setting.
Seventeen faculty and 20 residents from three institutions participated in six focus groups. Five themes emerged: triggers of reflection, intrinsic factors, extrinsic factors, timing, and outcome of reflection. Various triggers led to reflection; whether a specific trigger led to reflection depended on intrinsic and extrinsic factors. When reflection occurred, it happened in action or on action. Under optimal conditions, this reflection was goal and action directed and became critical reflection. In other instances, this process resulted in unproductive rumination or acted as an emotional release or supportive therapy.
Participants reflected in clinical settings, but did not always explicitly identify it as reflection or reflect in growth-promoting ways. Strategies to enhance critical reflection include developing knowledge and skills in reflection, providing performance data to inform reflection, creating time and space for safe reflection, and providing mentorship to guide the process.
探讨儿科教员和住院医师何时以及以何种形式进行反思。
2015年2月至6月,作者在加利福尼亚大学戴维斯分校、斯坦福大学和加利福尼亚大学旧金山分校对儿科教员和住院医师进行了焦点小组访谈,直至出现主题饱和。根据梅齐罗和舍恩的反思模型,采用与扎根理论相关的持续比较法对访谈记录进行分析。两名研究人员独立对访谈记录进行编码,并协调编码以形成主题。所有研究人员审查编码,并通过共识制定最终的主题列表。通过反复讨论,研究人员构建了临床环境中反思的概念模型。
来自三个机构的17名教员和20名住院医师参加了六个焦点小组。出现了五个主题:反思的触发因素、内在因素、外在因素、时机和反思的结果。各种触发因素导致反思;特定触发因素是否导致反思取决于内在和外在因素。反思发生时,是在行动中或对行动进行反思。在最佳条件下,这种反思是目标导向和行动导向的,并成为批判性反思。在其他情况下,这个过程会导致无效的沉思,或者起到情绪释放或支持性治疗的作用。
参与者在临床环境中进行反思,但并不总是明确将其视为反思或以促进成长的方式进行反思。增强批判性反思的策略包括培养反思的知识和技能、提供绩效数据以指导反思、创造安全反思的时间和空间以及提供指导以引导反思过程。