Objectives In order to recognise and facilitate the development of excellent medical doctors (physicians and residents), it is important to first identify the characteristics of excellence. Failure to recognising excellence causes loss of talent, loss of role models and it lowers work ethos. This causes less than excellent patient care and lack of commitment to improve the healthcare system. Design Systematic review performed according to the Association for Medical Education in Europe guideline. Information sources We searched Medline, Embase, Psycinfo, ERIC and CINAHL until 14 March 2022. Eligibility criteria We included original studies describing characteristics of excellent medical doctors, using a broad approach as to what is considered excellence. Assuming that excellence will be viewed differently depending on the interplay, and that different perspectives (peers, supervisors and patients) will add to a complete picture of the excellent medical doctor, we did not limit this review to a specific perspective. Data extraction and synthesis Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two researchers. We used the Quality Assessment Tool for Different Designs for quality assessment. Results Eleven articles were eligible and described the characteristics from different perspectives: (1) physicians on physicians, (2) physicians on residents, (3) patients on physicians and (4) mixed group (diverse sample of participants on physicians). The included studies showed a wide range of characteristics, which could be grouped into competencies (communication, professionalism and knowledge), motivation (directed to learning and to patient care) and personality (flexibility, empathy). Conclusions In order to define excellence of medical doctors three clusters seem important: competence, motivation and personality. This is in line with Renzulli's model of gifted behaviour. Our work adds to this model by specifying the content of these clusters, and as such provides a basis for definition and recognition of medical excellence.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: Prognostic assessments of the mortality of critically ill patients are frequently performed in daily clinical practice and provide prognostic guidance in treatment decisions. In contrast to several sophisticated tools, prognostic estimations made by healthcare providers are always available and accessible, are performed daily, and might have an additive value to guide clinical decision-making. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of students', nurses', and physicians' estimations and the association of their combined estimations with in-hospital mortality and 6-month follow-up.METHODS: The Simple Observational Critical Care Studies is a prospective observational single-center study in a tertiary teaching hospital in the Netherlands. All patients acutely admitted to the intensive care unit were included. Within 3 h of admission to the intensive care unit, a medical or nursing student, a nurse, and a physician independently predicted in-hospital and 6-month mortality. Logistic regression was used to assess the associations between predictions and the actual outcome; the area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) was calculated to estimate the discriminative accuracy of the students, nurses, and physicians.RESULTS: In 827 out of 1,010 patients, in-hospital mortality rates were predicted to be 11%, 15%, and 17% by medical students, nurses, and physicians, respectively. The estimations of students, nurses, and physicians were all associated with in-hospital mortality (OR 5.8, 95% CI [3.7, 9.2], OR 4.7, 95% CI [3.0, 7.3], and OR 7.7 95% CI [4.7, 12.8], respectively). Discriminative accuracy was moderate for all students, nurses, and physicians (between 0.58 and 0.68). When more estimations were of non-survival, the odds of non-survival increased (OR 2.4 95% CI [1.9, 3.1]) per additional estimate, AUROC 0.70 (0.65, 0.76). For 6-month mortality predictions, similar results were observed.CONCLUSIONS: Based on the initial examination, students, nurses, and physicians can only moderately predict in-hospital and 6-month mortality in critically ill patients. Combined estimations led to more accurate predictions and may serve as an example of the benefit of multidisciplinary clinical care and future research efforts.
AIM: Identification and synthesis of research data related to the roles and competencies of physicians and nurses that are prerequisites for careful shared decision-making with patients potentially undergoing cardiac surgery.DESIGN: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology for scoping reviews and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews.METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from inception dates up to March 2022, to identify primary studies published in a peer-reviewed journal. Study selection, assessment of the methodological quality and data extracting of the included studies were done by at least two independent researchers. To describe the findings of the studies, an emergent synthesis approach was used to visualize a descriptive representation of professional roles and competencies in shared decision-making, in an overview.RESULTS: The systematic search revealed 10,055 potential papers, 8873 articles were screened on title and abstract and 76 full texts were retrieved. Eight articles were included for final evaluation. For nurses and physicians, 26 different skills were identified in the literature to practice shared decision-making in cardiac surgery. The skills that emerged were divided into five professional roles: moderator; health educator; data collector; psychological supporter and translator.CONCLUSIONS: This review specifies the professional roles and required competencies related to shared decision-making in cardiac surgery. Further research is needed to compare our findings with other clinical areas and from there to arrive at a professional division of roles between the different clinical disciplines involved.IMPACT: The visualization of generic shared decision-making competencies and roles should establish the professional division of positions between various clinical physician and nurse disciplines in order to create a treatment plan based on evidence, values, preferences and the patient's personal situation.PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
