Laerke Marijke Noerholk1, Anne Mette Morcke1, Karlen S Bader Larsen1, Martin G Tolsgaard1,2,3. 1. Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES), Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2. Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Centre for Fetal Medicine, Juliane Marie Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Dyad learning occurs when two students work together to acquire new skills and knowledge. Several studies have provided evidence to support the educational rationale for dyad learning in the controlled simulated setting. However, the role of dyad learning in the clinical setting remains uncertain. Unlike the simulated setting, learning in the clinical setting depends on a complex interplay between medical students, doctors, nurses and patients potentially making dyad learning less valuable in clerkships. The objective of this study was to explore how key stakeholders perceive the value of implementing dyad learning during medical students' clinical clerkships. METHODS: In a constructivist qualitative study, we conducted 51 semi-structured interviews with 36 key stakeholders involved in dyad learning, including 10 medical students, 12 doctors, five nurses and nine patients. Data were coded inductively using thematic analysis, then coded deductively using stakeholder theory as a theoretical framework. RESULTS: We found that stakeholders generally perceived the educational impact of dyad learning in the clinical setting similarly but disagreed on its value. Students emphasised that dyad learning made them participate more actively during patient encounters and patients did not mind having two students present. Doctors and nurses considered dyad learning disruptive to the balance between service and training and reported that it did not resonate with their perception of good patient care. CONCLUSION: Dyad learning enables students to be more active during their clinical clerkships, but it easily disrupts the balance between service and training. This disruption may be exacerbated by the shifted balance in priorities and values between different stakeholder groups, as well as by making implicit teaching obligations more explicit for supervising doctors and nurses. Consequently, implementing dyad learning may not be perceived as valuable by doctors and nurses in the clinical setting, regardless of its pedagogical rationale.
INTRODUCTION: Dyad learning occurs when two students work together to acquire new skills and knowledge. Several studies have provided evidence to support the educational rationale for dyad learning in the controlled simulated setting. However, the role of dyad learning in the clinical setting remains uncertain. Unlike the simulated setting, learning in the clinical setting depends on a complex interplay between medical students, doctors, nurses and patients potentially making dyad learning less valuable in clerkships. The objective of this study was to explore how key stakeholders perceive the value of implementing dyad learning during medical students' clinical clerkships. METHODS: In a constructivist qualitative study, we conducted 51 semi-structured interviews with 36 key stakeholders involved in dyad learning, including 10 medical students, 12 doctors, five nurses and nine patients. Data were coded inductively using thematic analysis, then coded deductively using stakeholder theory as a theoretical framework. RESULTS: We found that stakeholders generally perceived the educational impact of dyad learning in the clinical setting similarly but disagreed on its value. Students emphasised that dyad learning made them participate more actively during patient encounters and patients did not mind having two students present. Doctors and nurses considered dyad learning disruptive to the balance between service and training and reported that it did not resonate with their perception of good patient care. CONCLUSION: Dyad learning enables students to be more active during their clinical clerkships, but it easily disrupts the balance between service and training. This disruption may be exacerbated by the shifted balance in priorities and values between different stakeholder groups, as well as by making implicit teaching obligations more explicit for supervising doctors and nurses. Consequently, implementing dyad learning may not be perceived as valuable by doctors and nurses in the clinical setting, regardless of its pedagogical rationale.