The School of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
The School of Health Professions Education, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
BMJ Open. 2022 Jul 25;12(7):e061144. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061144.
To map the evidence on learning practices currently used by experienced healthcare teams and dyads. The hypothesis is that through reviewing the literature we will identify the number and array of current learning practices. Through the lens of collaboration, the authors' goal is to map current practice to guide future research, policy and practice.
The review included studies from North America, Europe, Australasia and Asia. All studies were conducted in acute care settings such as operating rooms, emergency rooms, intensive care units and simulation centres.
The participants were experienced healthcare professionals who work in acute care settings of any age or any sex. The group was interprofessional including two or more disciplines and/or professions. Characteristics of the participants who were excluded were students, novices, healthcare professionals who work in non-acute care settings and single profession studies.
Aligned to the protocol quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted. Thematic analysis was used to evaluate and categorise the study findings. Secondary outcome measures were the different types of learning practices used together to produce excellence.
Most empirical studies were qualitative studies (46%), 31% were mixed methods and 23% were quantitative studies. There were also 24 reviews and 10 commentaries. The most frequent learning practices were structured observation and case scenarios (21%) followed by audio/video analysis and surveys (17%). Next was interviews and didactic presentations (12%) followed by prebriefing/debriefing and checklists (11%). Other learning practices accounted for less than 10%. Overall, 84 of the 86 publications, examined learning practices of teams larger than two participants.
While the quality of studies was high, and there was a broad range of empirical studies, reviews and commentaries, there was no consensus on best practice in determining which learning practices to use and measurement of the effect of these practices.
绘制目前经验丰富的医疗保健团队和二人组使用的学习实践证据图谱。假设是，通过审查文献，我们将确定当前学习实践的数量和种类。通过协作的视角，作者的目标是绘制当前实践图，以指导未来的研究、政策和实践。
该综述包括来自北美、欧洲、澳大拉西亚和亚洲的研究。所有研究均在急性护理环境中进行，如手术室、急诊室、重症监护病房和模拟中心。
参与者是在任何年龄或任何性别的急性护理环境中工作的经验丰富的医疗保健专业人员。该团队是跨专业的，包括两个或更多学科和/或专业。被排除的参与者的特征是学生、新手、在非急性护理环境中工作的医疗保健专业人员以及单一专业研究。
根据方案进行了定量和定性分析。主题分析用于评估和分类研究结果。次要结果是用于产生卓越表现的不同类型的学习实践。
大多数实证研究是定性研究（46%），31%是混合方法研究，23%是定量研究。还有 24 篇综述和 10 篇评论。最常见的学习实践是结构化观察和案例情景（21%），其次是音频/视频分析和调查（17%）。接下来是访谈和讲座（12%），然后是预简报/后简报和检查表（11%）。其他学习实践的比例低于 10%。总体而言，86 篇出版物中有 84 篇检查了大于两名参与者的团队的学习实践。
虽然研究质量很高，而且有广泛的实证研究、综述和评论，但在确定使用哪些学习实践以及衡量这些实践的效果方面，没有达成最佳实践的共识。
