In their postgraduate educational programs, residents are immersed in a complex workplace. To improve the quality of the training program, it is necessary to gain insight into the factors that influence the process of learning in the workplace. An exploratory study was carried out among 56 nursing home physicians in training (NHPT) and 62 supervisors. They participated in semi-structured group interviews, in which they discussed four questions regarding workplace learning. Qualitative analysis of the data was performed to establish a framework of factors that influence workplace learning, within which framework comparisons between groups could be made. A framework consisting of 56 factors was identified. These were grouped into 10 categories, which in turn were grouped into four domains: the working environment, educational factors in the workplace, NHPT characteristics and supervisor characteristics. Of the factors that influence workplace learning, social integration was cited most often. Supervisors more often reported educational factors and NHPTs more frequently reported impediments. Conclusion: The educational relationship may be improved when supervisors explicitly discuss the learning process and learning conditions within the workplace, thereby focusing on the NHPT needs. Special attention should be paid to the aspects of social integration. A good start could be to answer the question regarding how to establish a basic feeling of 'knowing where you are' and 'how to go about things' to make residents feel comfortable enough to focus on the learning process.
Background: Advanced medical technologies (AMTs), such as respiratory support or suction devices, are increasingly used in home settings and incidents may well result in patient harm. Information about risks and incidents can contribute to improved patient safety, provided that those are reported and analysed systematically. Objectives: To identify the frequency of incidents when using AMTs in home settings, the effects on patient outcomes and the actions taken by nurses following identification of incidents. Methods: A cross-sectional study of 209 home care nurses in the Netherlands working with infusion therapy, parenteral nutrition or morphine pumps, combining data from a questionnaire and registration forms covering more than 13 000 patient contacts. Descriptive statistics were used. Results: We identified 140 incidents (57 adverse events; 83 near misses). The frequencies in relation to the number of patient contacts were 2.7% for infusion therapy, 1.3% for parenteral nutrition and 2.6% for morphine pumps. The main causes were identified as related to the product (43.6%), the organisation of care (27.9%), the nurse as a user (15.7%) and the environment (12.9%). 40% of all adverse events resulted in mild to severe harm to the patient. Incidents had been discussed in the team (70.7%), with the patient/informal caregiver(s) (50%), or other actions had been taken (40.5%). 15.5% of incidents had been formally reported according to the organisation's protocol. Conclusions: Most incidents are attributed to product failures. Although such events predominantly cause no harm, a significant proportion of patients do suffer some degree of harm. There is considerable underreporting of incidents with AMTs in home care. This study has identified a discrepancy in quality circles: learning takes place at the team level rather than at the organisational level.
