FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2013365462> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2013365462 abstract "In a widely quoted New Yorker piece published last year (October 3, 2011), Atul Gawande urges doctors to embrace coaching as a means to improve clinical performance. Using a series of compelling stories, Gawande shows how coaching makes a huge difference to athletes, musicians, and business executives. He describes how inviting an old surgical mentor into the operating room led to some surprising insights—and better surgical results.Many internists and other cognitive specialists may have finished Gawande’s piece thinking: coaching sounds great for surgeons and other proceduralists, but what’s in it for me? However, communicating with patients is the ‘procedure’ most often used by general internists and other cognitive specialists, and like other procedures, can be learned and refined through guided practice. Conducting high-stakes conversations such as breaking bad news, mediating disagreements between family members, motivating change in health behaviors, and conducting family meetings are all important moments in the physician-patient relationship and are, in their own way, just as challenging, complex, and momentous as a difficult surgical procedure. Yet in training and in practice, we are rarely observed, coached, and asked to reflect on our communication skills. If faculty and trainees alike do not continue to improve past whatever plateau they are able to achieve on their own, is it really any wonder they get stuck?This issue of JGIM features several articles that address the issue of how to support and motivate performance improvement. At the organizational level, the effects of well-meaning interventions are difficult to anticipate fully. As described by Powell et al., the VA implemented a number of performance standards as part of its re-engineering process during the Clinton administration. These standards were intended to improve clinical quality of care and were initially effective in doing so. More recently, however, there have been unintended consequences. Powell et al. show that in attempting to comply with computerized reminders, VA staff encountered instances of inappropriate clinical care, decreased provider focus on patient concerns, and diminished patient autonomy. Non-physician staff also described resentment at doing work that would help physicians achieve financial rewards. In an accompanying editorial, former VA Undersecretary for Health Kenneth Kizer highlights the importance of local input in developing standards that make sense for a particular practice community and the patients they serve.Physicians are under no greater scrutiny at any time in their professional lives than during residency training. However, many trainees in internal medicine complete their residency seldom having been observed performing a complete history and physical examination. The quality of feedback is also highly variable, with most end-of-rotation evaluation reports containing little constructive criticism. One reason (as suggested by Cavalcanti and Detsky in JAMA, September 7, 2011) is the difficulty in reconciling the dual roles of coach and evaluator. Although there have been proposals to separate the roles (for example, see MJ Gordon, Academic Medicine, October 1997), the idea has not caught on. The most likely explanation is that the exigencies of a busy ward service preclude the kind of detailed observation and feedback that residents need and that at least some attendings would like to provide. In this issue, Ratanawongsa et al. test this hypothesis by evaluating a radically redesigned inpatient rotation at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, where patient volume was literally cut in half. Attendings were required to observe and give feedback to residents following several mandatory activities, including post-discharge telephone calls to all patients, home visits to select patients, telephone calls with outpatient providers, and structured interviews about medications. As a result, residents reported improved knowledge of their patients and patients reported better satisfaction with physician care.Feedback is most effective when it is immediate, specific, balanced, and behaviorally focused. In contrast, the feedback given to speakers at internal and external medical education conferences is usually delayed, vague, and evaluative. The article by Wittich et al. describes an attempt to break this mold. The authors redesigned the standard evaluation form used by the Mayo Medical School for its Continuing Medical Education programs. The form successfully elicited more balanced and behavior-specific feedback from course attendees.While there is no doubt that incentives, coaching, and feedback have their place, there is still no substitute for practice—10,000 hours of practice for complex skills, if Malcolm Gladwell is to be believed. In his “Eulogy to Overnight Call,” Christopher Moriates laments the disappearance of what now seems, in retrospect, an unparalleled opportunity to watch acute disease evolve over time, quietly reflect on one’s successes and failures, and test one’s mettle as a physician (in the absence of those pesky attendings). In fairness, the author also acknowledges the bone wracking fatigue, irritability, depression, and loss of compassion that could also accompany 36–hour shifts. In any case, work–hour limitations are a fact of life. If we are to help residents achieve their very best medical selves in a fixed number of hours, we must get much better at providing feedback. We know, however, that giving effective feedback isn’t easy. Some of us might want to think about getting a coach." @default.
• W2013365462 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2013365462 creator A5031871819 @default.
• W2013365462 date "2012-02-03" @default.
• W2013365462 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2013365462 title "From the Editors’ Desk: Improving Performance Through Coaching, Incentives, Feedback, and Practice" @default.
• W2013365462 doi "https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-1999-3" @default.
• W2013365462 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3304043" @default.
• W2013365462 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22302357" @default.
• W2013365462 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2013365462 type Work @default.
• W2013365462 sameAs 2013365462 @default.
• W2013365462 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2013365462 countsByYear W20133654622015 @default.
• W2013365462 countsByYear W20133654622019 @default.
• W2013365462 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2013365462 hasAuthorship W2013365462A5031871819 @default.
• W2013365462 hasBestOaLocation W20133654621 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConcept C175444787 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConcept C27415008 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConcept C2776545233 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConcept C2779363792 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConcept C2780573756 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConcept C2780876879 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConcept C29122968 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConcept C509550671 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConcept C542102704 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConceptScore W2013365462C15744967 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConceptScore W2013365462C159110408 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConceptScore W2013365462C162324750 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConceptScore W2013365462C175444787 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConceptScore W2013365462C17744445 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConceptScore W2013365462C199539241 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConceptScore W2013365462C27415008 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConceptScore W2013365462C2776545233 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConceptScore W2013365462C2779363792 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConceptScore W2013365462C2780573756 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConceptScore W2013365462C2780876879 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConceptScore W2013365462C29122968 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConceptScore W2013365462C509550671 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConceptScore W2013365462C542102704 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConceptScore W2013365462C71924100 @default.
• W2013365462 hasConceptScore W2013365462C77805123 @default.
• W2013365462 hasLocation W20133654621 @default.
• W2013365462 hasLocation W20133654622 @default.
• W2013365462 hasLocation W20133654623 @default.
• W2013365462 hasLocation W20133654624 @default.
• W2013365462 hasOpenAccess W2013365462 @default.
• W2013365462 hasPrimaryLocation W20133654621 @default.
• W2013365462 hasRelatedWork W1965599818 @default.
• W2013365462 hasRelatedWork W1969806322 @default.
• W2013365462 hasRelatedWork W1975371860 @default.
• W2013365462 hasRelatedWork W1975494933 @default.
• W2013365462 hasRelatedWork W1983094908 @default.
• W2013365462 hasRelatedWork W1992865439 @default.
• W2013365462 hasRelatedWork W2011740078 @default.
• W2013365462 hasRelatedWork W2014150963 @default.
• W2013365462 hasRelatedWork W2024088749 @default.
• W2013365462 hasRelatedWork W2031479420 @default.
• W2013365462 hasRelatedWork W2039987271 @default.
• W2013365462 hasRelatedWork W2050659368 @default.
• W2013365462 hasRelatedWork W2053233624 @default.
• W2013365462 hasRelatedWork W2081246665 @default.
• W2013365462 hasRelatedWork W2138498142 @default.
• W2013365462 hasRelatedWork W2740131888 @default.
• W2013365462 hasRelatedWork W2993870625 @default.
• W2013365462 hasRelatedWork W307513401 @default.
• W2013365462 hasRelatedWork W83882834 @default.
• W2013365462 hasRelatedWork W2159793765 @default.
• W2013365462 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2013365462 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2013365462 magId "2013365462" @default.
• W2013365462 workType "article" @default.