論文

Background: Ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context is increasingly recognized as essential for physicians to work as professionals. However, the relationship between specialty and ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context has been understudied. Here, we investigated the association between specialty and ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context, focusing on differences between family physicians (FPs) and non-FPs. Methods: We performed a nationwide cross-sectional study in Japan. We asked FPs from 14 family medicine residency programs across Japan and non-FPs from monitors of an internet survey company in Japan to participate in the study. We assessed their tolerance for ambiguity using the Japanese version of the Tolerance for Ambiguity in Medical Students and Doctors (J-TAMSAD) scale. Results: In total, 388 physicians (178 FPs and 210 non-FPs) completed our anonymous online survey and were included in the analysis. After adjustment for possible confounders (gender and postgraduate years), FPs had higher J-TAMSAD scale scores than internists/pediatricians, surgeons, and physicians with other specialties, meaning that FPs had greater ambiguity tolerance. Conclusions: This study reveals that FPs had greater tolerance for ambiguity in the clinical context than non-FPs. Our findings suggest that there may be a need to increase non-FP's tolerance for ambiguity specific to the clinical context through educational interventions, since ambiguity is inherent and growing in medicine today. FPs and non-FPs should work together to complement each other's strengths, rather than simply improving the training of non-FPs.

Background: Ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context is increasingly recognized as essential for physicians to work as professionals. However, the relationship between specialty and ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context has been understudied. Here, we investigated the association between specialty and ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context, focusing on differences between family physicians (FPs) and non-FPs. Methods: We performed a nationwide cross-sectional study in Japan. We asked FPs from 14 family medicine residency programs across Japan and non-FPs from monitors of an internet survey company in Japan to participate in the study. We assessed their tolerance for ambiguity using the Japanese version of the Tolerance for Ambiguity in Medical Students and Doctors (J-TAMSAD) scale. Results: In total, 388 physicians (178 FPs and 210 non-FPs) completed our anonymous online survey and were included in the analysis. After adjustment for possible confounders (gender and postgraduate years), FPs had higher J-TAMSAD scale scores than internists/pediatricians, surgeons, and physicians with other specialties, meaning that FPs had greater ambiguity tolerance. Conclusions: This study reveals that FPs had greater tolerance for ambiguity in the clinical context than non-FPs. Our findings suggest that there may be a need to increase non-FP's tolerance for ambiguity specific to the clinical context through educational interventions, since ambiguity is inherent and growing in medicine today. FPs and non-FPs should work together to complement each other's strengths, rather than simply improving the training of non-FPs.

Abstract Background Ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context is increasingly recognized as essential for physicians to work as professionals. However, the relationship between specialty and ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context has been understudied. Here, we investigated the association between specialty and ambiguity tolerance in the clinical context, focusing on differences between family physicians (FPs) and non‐FPs. Methods We performed a nationwide cross‐sectional study in Japan. We asked FPs from 14 family medicine residency programs across Japan and non‐FPs from monitors of an internet survey company in Japan to participate in the study. We assessed their tolerance for ambiguity using the Japanese version of the Tolerance for Ambiguity in Medical Students and Doctors (J‐TAMSAD) scale. Results In total, 388 physicians (178 FPs and 210 non‐FPs) completed our anonymous online survey and were included in the analysis. After adjustment for possible confounders (gender and postgraduate years), FPs had higher J‐TAMSAD scale scores than internists/pediatricians, surgeons, and physicians with other specialties, meaning that FPs had greater ambiguity tolerance. Conclusions This study reveals that FPs had greater tolerance for ambiguity in the clinical context than non‐FPs. Our findings suggest that there may be a need to increase non‐FP's tolerance for ambiguity specific to the clinical context through educational interventions, since ambiguity is inherent and growing in medicine today. FPs and non‐FPs should work together to complement each other's strengths, rather than simply improving the training of non‐FPs.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the evolution of social network services (SNSs) can provide insights into the functions of interprofessional information-sharing systems. Using social network analysis, we aimed to analyze annual changes in the network structure of SNS-based information sharing among healthcare professionals over a 3-year period in Japan. METHODS: We analyzed data on SNS-based information sharing networks with online message boards for healthcare professionals for 2018, 2019, and 2020 in a Japanese community. These networks were created for each patient so that healthcare professionals could post and view messages on the web platform. In the social network analysis (SNA), healthcare professionals registered with a patient group were represented as nodes, and message posting and viewing relationships were represented as links. We investigated the structural characteristics of the networks using several measures for SNA, including reciprocity, assortativity and betweenness centrality, which reflect interrelational links, the prevalence of similar nodes with neighbors, and the mediating roles of other nodes, respectively. Next, to compare year-to-year trends in networks of patients overall, and between receiving nursing care levels 1-3 (lighter care requirement) and levels 4-5 (heavier care requirement), we described the annual structural differences and analyzed each measure for SNA using the Steel-Dwass test. RESULTS: Among 844, 940, and 1063 groups in each year, groups for analysis in care levels 1-3/4-5 were identified as 106/135, 79/89, and 57/57, respectively. The overall annual assessment showed a trend toward increased diameter and decreased density, but the differences were not significant. For those requiring care levels 1-3, assortativity decreased significantly, while for those requiring care levels 4-5, reciprocity decreased and betweenness centrality increased significantly. No significant differences were found in the other items. DISCUSSION: This study revealed that the network of patients with a lighter care requirement had more connections consisting of nodes with different links, whereas the network of patients with a heavier care requirement had more fixed intermediary roles and weaker interrelationships among healthcare professionals. Clarifying interprofessional collaborative mechanisms underlying development patterns among healthcare professionals can contribute to future clinical quality improvement.

　令和4年改訂版医学教育モデル・コア・カリキュラム (以下, コアカリ) では, アウトカム基盤型教育において, さらなる展開として, 新たに『学修方略・評価』の章が追加された. カリキュラムの重要な要素である方略・評価の章を加え, 資質・能力に紐づけることで, 学修者や指導者にコアカリを活用していただけるよう工夫した. また, 教育現場ですぐに実践していただけるように11の方略・評価事例をGood Practiceとして紹介した. ただし, これらのGood Practiceは, 各施設での実施を必須とするものではなく, あくまで参考例として掲載している. 各大学の特徴を生かした独自の方略・評価が策定され, 本章がさらに発展していくことを期待する.

Background: This study examined the association between patient experience (PX, events experienced by patients during primary care that are an indicator of patient-centered quality) of primary care and varicella-zoster virus (VZV) vaccine uptake in older adults. Methods: A case-control study of VZV vaccination was conducted at a community hospital in Ibaraki, Japan. Patients aged 65 years or older who had continuously been patients of the hospital between April 2018 and April 2021 were included in the study. The vaccinated group consisted of 166 VZV-vaccinated patients. The controls consisted of 29 age- and sex-matched patients who did not receive VZV vaccination. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed between August and September 2021. It included the Japanese version of the Primary Care Assessment Tool Short Form (JPCAT-SF) to evaluate PX and included questions about recommendations for VZV vaccination by a physician and the vaccination history of relatives. Multivariable and intermediate factor analyses were used to assess whether there was an association between VZV vaccination and PX. Results: Questionnaires were sent to 457 subjects. Responses from 228 (116 in the vaccination group and 112 in the non-vaccinated group) were included in the analysis. Multivariable analysis, which excluded physician recommendation for VZV vaccination as a variable because it was an intermediate factor in the analysis, showed an association between PX and VZV vaccination (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.92; P =.049). Conclusions: PX was associated with past VZV vaccination. Physician recommendation for VZV vaccination was an intermediate factor between PX and VZV vaccination.

【背景】多職種・複数診療科が関与するアレルギー診療水準の向上には,専門医以外も対象とした教育の必要性が考えられるが,そのニーズ調査と方法に関する検討は不十分である.【目的・方法】免疫アレルギー疾患研究10か年戦略次世代タスクフォース(ENGAGE-TF)は学会支援下に慶應義塾大学,福井大学と連携した複数回のバーチャル教育企画「出前授業」を企画した.そのニーズと有用性を検証するため,SNSや各大学・医師会等を通じて周知し,メーリングリストを用いてアンケート調査を行った.【結果】のべ1139人・回より回答を得た.半数以上が専門医以外の医師であり,幅広い医療関連職種も参加した.7割が「とても満足」,6割以上が「ちょうどよい」難易度と回答した.自由記載の感想から,職種毎の学びの焦点,経験年数による学びのスタンスの違いが見られた.【考察・結語】9割を占める専門医以外の参加者のプライマリケアにおけるアレルギー疾患対応ニーズの高さと,経験11年以上の医療関連職種の遠隔教育・リカレント教育の有用性が示唆された.(著者抄録)

Background: The use of simulated patients (SPs) to assess medical students’ clinical performance is gaining prominence, underscored by patient safety perspective. However, few reports have investigated the validity of such assessment. Here, we examined the validity and reliability of an assessment tool that serves as a standardized tool for SPs to assess medical students’ medical interview. Methods: This longitudinal survey was conducted at Keio University School of Medicine in Japan from 2014 to 2021. To establish content validity, the simulated patient assessment tool (SPAT) was developed by several medical education specialists from 2008 to 2013. A cohort of 36 SPs assessed the performance of 831 medical students in clinical practice medical interview sessions from April 2014 to December 2021. The assessment’s internal structure was analyzed using descriptive statistics (maximum, minimum, median, mean, and standard deviation) for the SPAT’s 13 item total scores. Structural validity was examined with exploratory factor analysis, and internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. The mean SPAT total scores across different SPs and scenarios were compared using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Convergent validity was determined by correlating SPAT with the post-clinical clerkship obstructive structured clinical examination (post-CC OSCE) total scores using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Results: Of the 831 assessment sheets, 36 with missing values were excluded, leaving 795 for analysis. Thirty-five SPs, excluding one SP who quit in 2014, completed 795 assessments, for a response rate of 95.6%. Exploratory factor analysis revealed two factors, communication and physician performance. The overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.929. Significant differences in SPAT total scores were observed across SPs and scenarios via one-way ANOVA. A moderate correlation (r =.212, p <.05) was found between SPAT and post-CC OSCE total scores, indicating convergent validity. Conclusions: Evidence for the validity of SPAT was examined. These findings may be useful in the standardization of SP assessment of the scenario-based clinical performance of medical students.