PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 9748838

[Practice is learned by practice].

Abstract

Efficient continuing education for experienced physicians should build upon and reflect doctors' concrete everyday experiences and self-defined learning needs. Reciprocal practice visits among general practitioners, afford excellent opportunities for colleagues to see and be seen, to reflect, discuss, learn from each other and develop networks, using commonly experienced consultations as a starting point. Practice visits have been credited within the Norwegian continuing medical education system since 1989, but very few practitioners have made use of the method. We have developed a course where groups of 10-12 experienced general practitioners conduct four whole day practice visits over a 2-month period. Group sessions, totalling 20 hours, are used to develop cohesion and trust among colleagues through discussions and exercises. In the later stages, plenary sessions are used to present and discuss experiences from all of the practice visits, and participants are encouraged to develop ideas and strategies concerning their professional future. The participants in the three courses arranged so far (n = 31) were general practitioners with, on average, ten years of experience. Evaluations were positive, and emphasized the value of the course as an opportunity to break the relative isolation of general practice, and share experiences, insights, frustrations and ideas with colleagues.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

E Schei, A Gulbrandsen, T Skjerven. 1998-08-20. [Practice is learned by practice].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9748838/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Extent and determinants of error in doctors' prognoses in terminally ill patients: prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe doctors' prognostic accuracy in terminally ill patients and to evaluate the determinants of that accuracy. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Five outpatient hospice programmes in Chicago. PARTICIPANTS: 343 doctors provided survival estimates for 468 terminally ill patients at the time of hospice referral. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' estimated and actual survival. RESULTS: Median survival was 24 days. Only 20% (92/468) of predictions were accurate (within 33% of actual survival); 63% (295/468) were overoptimistic and 17% (81/468) were overpessimistic. Overall, doctors overestimated survival by a factor of 5.3. Few patient or doctor characteristics were associated with prognostic accuracy. Male patients were 58% less likely to have overpessimistic predictions. Non-oncology medical specialists were 326% more likely than general internists to make overpessimistic predictions. Doctors in the upper quartile of practice experience were the most accurate. As duration of doctor-patient relationship increased and time since last contact decreased, prognostic accuracy decreased. CONCLUSION: Doctors are inaccurate in their prognoses for terminally ill patients and the error is systematically optimistic. The inaccuracy is, in general, not restricted to certain kinds of doctors or patients. These phenomena may be adversely affecting the quality of care given to patients near the end of life.

Clinical Competence