As doctors, most of our study is done through personal study.
Some are done with others, such as in lectures and seminars, but this is usually not much different from studying alone.
In fact, one stands in front of the room and conveys facts or opinions while others are relatively passive.
Very few doctors will spend their time in collaborative learning groups, where everyone goes deep into their work together.
This is contradictory, as these groups may be one of the most effective ways to develop as professionals.
There are many different names for collaborative learning groups, including peer supervision 1, action learning sets2, and "balint group" 3, but they all have the same form more or less.
A group meets regularly, perhaps every month or six weeks.
Everyone is sitting around a table or just face-to-face.
At any meeting, some people have the opportunity to describe in detail the specific dilemmas or challenges they face in their professional work-perhaps clinical cases, or problems with colleagues
Then open the discussion to others.
Often, there is a well-trained host who ensures that the team is focused on the task and that everyone follows the basic rules, such as not interrupting, rather than trying to dominate the conversation.
Usually, there are six to twelve people in such groups.
Meetings usually last for an hour or two and have enough time to properly consider all the issues raised. oas_tag.
The LoadAMost collaboration team drew on similar principles.
There is a hypothesis that people will learn more from it.
Delve into some specific cases rather than rushing through a large number of cases.
Similarly, it is recognized that many of the dilemmas we face in our professional lives are complex and may be obscured by uncertainty.
These dilemmas may not have any quick or easy solutions, but will always benefit from thoughtful reflection.
This means being ready to open your heart to challenge and being willing to challenge others.
Another principle is that the thoughts of several peers are combined.
Called "group thinking"-will inevitably be better than any one of them.
Each of us is limited by our own experience and deep-rooted views.
So hearing other people's ideas can open up a variety of options that we may have never considered, especially if this group includes people from gender and a variety of professional and cultural backgrounds.
AdviceSome, who joined the collaborative learning group for the first time, were surprised to find that advice is often strictly prohibited.
There are several reasons for this, but they come down to the fact that the person who raised the question needs to maintain ownership of the question and find an answer for himself.
The speaker wishes to publish their narrative without being suggested to bomb and expose it to the curiosity of others.
Comments like this: "Why don't you give the question to someone more senior?
There may be an illusion of a way forward, but it is often far less useful than asking a set of questions about who is involved in the case and what the key relationship looks like, who has the power to make the final decision.
Almost always, case speakers find it more helpful than being told directly or indirectly what to do.
People who participate in groups get help on their career issues, but they also get other benefits.
They hear about the problems that others face and how they can solve them.
They understand different types of organizations, including their own, and how they operate.
The group is also a great place to learn how to listen attentively, ask good questions, and gain confidence in expressing your views.
These skills can be extended to daily work, including clinical work.
The panelists also understand the group dynamics and how they are managed.
For example, psychoanalyst Wilfred biang's tendency to shift groups to tasks other than to take a flight to abstract discussion (
About the state of politics or the world, for example)
Or decide to qualify one or two members of the organization as heroes or villains.
Interestingly, group discussions can sometimes reflect the features of the cases being discussed through so-called "parallel processes.
A group that talks about angry families may find that its members begin to argue with each other in a way that is completely different from their normal behavior.
Excellent hosts learn to identify and name these processes, and participants learn how to deal with them in their own working environment.
Sound evidence has long been a fan and advocate of cooperative group learning.
However, these activities may take up a lot of people's time and additional resources will be required to train hosts.
Because of this, managers often ask if there is evidence of the effectiveness of these groups.
As with all complex educational interventions, it is not simple to collect such evidence.
The different methods and backgrounds of collaborative group learning make it difficult to compare like, and randomized grouping and control groups are often not possible, and there are many mixed variables. (
Organizations that encourage group learning, for example, may also undertake other initiatives at the same time to promote employee development).
Nevertheless, there is ample evidence from many different areas that such learning has had a positive impact on many different levels.
General Practitioner (GPs)
Cooperative learning groups in some countries have been shown to bring about significant changes in contact with patients, performance of psychotherapy methods, and reduction of job burnout.
5 Similarly, a review of the ten-year study of various institutional action learning sets shows how these studies can help participants develop a broad range of management and leadership skills, improve their ability to resolve conflicts, and improve their coaching skills.
Cooperative learning groups are becoming routine and even mandatory in some professions and some countries.
The global positioning system in Denmark and Sweden, and even advisers to one or two trust funds in the United Kingdom, are now.
However, in many health service organizations here and elsewhere, there are still very few opportunities for cooperative learning groups.
If they do exist, I would urge every doctor to join it.
If they are not there, I would also encourage managers and educators to consider setting them up and funding them.
Group conversations, if done properly, can help people make the best professional decisions in written information and even expert advice that is rarely done.
Owen D. Short R.
Clinical supervision in the medical profession: Structured reflective practice.
Medunhead: Open University Press, 2013. ↵Edmonstone J.
Action Learning in health care: A Practical Manual.
Milton Keynes: Radcliffe, 2011.
Samuel Salinsky J, sucking, eds.
Talk about my patients: Balint method in general medical education.
London: Royal College of General Medicine, 2006. ↵Bion W.
Experience in groups and other papers.
London: 1961 Tavistock.
Launcher Sommers LS, Launer J, eds.
Clinical uncertainty in primary care: the challenge of collaborative engagement.
New York: Springer, 2013.
Marquette Jordan Leonard HL
Evidence of the effectiveness of action learning.
Action Learning Res Pract 2010;