INTRODUCTION: The first year following graduation from medical school is challenging as learning from books changes to workplace-based learning. Analysis and reflection on experience may ease this transition. We used Significant Event Analysis (SEA) as a tool to explore what pre-registration house officers (PRHOs) consider successful and problematic events, and to identify what problem-solving strategies they employ. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A senior house officer systematically led the PRHO through the SEA of one successful and one problematic event following a night call. The PRHO wrote answers to questions about diagnosis, what happened, how he or she contributed and what knowledge-gaining activities the PRHO would prioritise before the next call. RESULTS: By using an inductive, thematic data analysis, we identified five problem-solving strategies: non-analytical reasoning, analytical reasoning, communication with patients, communication with colleagues and professional behaviour. On average, 1.5 strategies were used in the successful events and 1.2 strategies in the problematic events. Most PRHOs were unable to suggest activities other than reading textbooks. CONCLUSION: SEA was valuable for the identification of PRHOs' problem-solving strategies in a natural setting. PRHOs should be assisted in increasing their repertoire of strategies, and they should also be helped to "learn to learn" as they were largely unable to point to new learning strategies. FUNDING: not relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.
INTRODUCTION: The first year following graduation from medical school is challenging as learning from books changes to workplace-based learning. Analysis and reflection on experience may ease this transition. We used Significant Event Analysis (SEA) as a tool to explore what pre-registration house officers (PRHOs) consider successful and problematic events, and to identify what problem-solving strategies they employ. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A senior house officer systematically led the PRHO through the SEA of one successful and one problematic event following a night call. The PRHO wrote answers to questions about diagnosis, what happened, how he or she contributed and what knowledge-gaining activities the PRHO would prioritise before the next call. RESULTS: By using an inductive, thematic data analysis, we identified five problem-solving strategies: non-analytical reasoning, analytical reasoning, communication with patients, communication with colleagues and professional behaviour. On average, 1.5 strategies were used in the successful events and 1.2 strategies in the problematic events. Most PRHOs were unable to suggest activities other than reading textbooks. CONCLUSION: SEA was valuable for the identification of PRHOs' problem-solving strategies in a natural setting. PRHOs should be assisted in increasing their repertoire of strategies, and they should also be helped to "learn to learn" as they were largely unable to point to new learning strategies. FUNDING: not relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant.