Disciplinary boundaries and integrating care: using Q-methodology to understand trainee views on being a good doctor

Muddiman, Esther ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2630-6134, Bullock, Alison ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3800-2186, Hampton, Jennifer ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6525-0535, Allery, Lynne ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0890-4202, MacDonald, Janet, Webb, Katie and Pugsley, Lesley 2019. Disciplinary boundaries and integrating care: using Q-methodology to understand trainee views on being a good doctor. BMC Medical Education 19 , 59. 10.1186/s12909-019-1493-2

Preview

PDF - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (752kB) | Preview

Abstract

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.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Published Online
Status:	Published
Schools:	Cardiff Unit for Research and Evaluation in Medical and Dental Education (CUREMeDE) Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education Social Sciences (Includes Criminology and Education)
Publisher:	BioMed Central
ISSN:	1472-6920
Date of First Compliant Deposit:	12 February 2019
Date of Acceptance:	11 February 2019
Last Modified:	05 Jan 2024 07:43
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/119450

Citation Data

Cited 8 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item