Rationale, aims, and objectives Uncertainty is a complex and constant phenomenon in clinical practice. How medical students recognize and respond to uncertainty impacts on their well‐being, career choices, and attitudes towards patients. It has been suggested that curricula should do more to prepare medical students for an uncertain world. In order to teach medical students about uncertainty, we need to understand how uncertainty has been conceptualized in the literature to date. The aim of this article is to explore existing models of uncertainty and to develop a framework of clinical uncertainty to aid medical education. Method A scoping literature review was performed to identify conceptual models of uncertainty in healthcare. Content and inductive analyses were performed to explore three dimensions of clinical uncertainty: sources of uncertainty, subjective influencers and responses to uncertainty. Results Nine hundred one references were identified using our search strategy, of which, 24 met our inclusion criteria. It was possible to classify these conceptual models using one or more of three dimensions of uncertainty; sources, subjective influencers, and responses. Exploration and further classification of these dimensions led to the development of a framework of uncertainty for medical education. Conclusion The developed framework of clinical uncertainty highlights sources, subjective influencers, responses to uncertainty, and the dynamic relationship among these elements. Our framework illustrates the different aspects of knowledge as a source of uncertainty and how to distinguish between those aspects. Our framework highlights the complexity of sources of uncertainty, especially when including uncertainty arising from relationships and systems. These sources can occur in combination. Our framework is also novel in how it describes the impact of influencers such as personal characteristics, experience, and affect on perceptions of and responses to uncertainty. This framework can be used by educators and curricula developers to help understand and teach about clinical uncertainty.

No abstract

No abstract

The hope that reliably testing clinicians' competencies would improve patient safety is unfulfilled and clinicians' psychosocial safety is deteriorating. Our purpose was to conceptualise 'mutual safety', which could increase benefit as well as reduce harm. Methods: A cultural-historical analysis of how medical education has positioned the patient as an object of benefit guided implementation research into how mutual safety could be achieved. Results: Educating doctors to abide by moral principles and use rigorous habits of mind and scientific technologies made medicine a profession. Doctors' complex attributes addressed patients' complex diseases and personal circumstances, from which doctors benefited too. The patient safety movement drove reforms, which reorientated medical education from complexity to simplicity: clinicians' competencies should be standardised and measurable, and clinicians whose 'incompetence' caused harm remediated. Applying simple standards to an increasingly complex, and therefore inescapably risky, practice could, however, explain clinicians' declining psychosocial health. We conducted a formative intervention to examine how 'acting wisely' could help clinicians benefit patients amidst complexity. We chose the everyday task of insulin therapy, where benefit and harm are precariously balanced. 247 students, doctors, and pharmacists used a thought tool to plan how best to perform this risky task, given their current clinical capabilities, and in the sometimes-hostile clinical milieus where they practised. Analysis of 1000 commitments to behaviour change and 600 learning points showed that addressing complexity called for a skills-set that defied standardisation. Clinicians gained confidence, intrinsic motivation, satisfaction, capability, and a sense of legitimacy from finding new ways of benefiting patients. Conclusion: Medical education needs urgently to acknowledge the complexity of practice and synergise doctors' and patients' safety. We have shown how this is possible.

IntroductionJunior residents routinely prescribe medications for hospitalised patients with only armslength supervision, which compromises patient safety. A cardinal example is insulin prescribing, which is commonplace, routinely delegated to very junior doctors, difficult, potentially very dangerous, and getting no better. Our aim was to operationalise the concept of 'readiness to prescribe' by validating an instrument to quality-improve residents' workplace prescribing education. MethodsGuided by theories of behaviour change, implementation, and error, and by empirical evidence, we developed and refined a mixed-methods 24-item evaluation instrument, and analysed numerical responses from Foundation Trainees (junior residents) in Northern Ireland, UK using principal axis factoring, and conducted a framework analysis of participants' freetext responses. Results255 trainees participated, 54% women and 46% men, 80% of whom were in the second foundation year. The analysis converged on a 4-factor solution explaining 57% of the variance. Participants rated their capability to prescribe higher (79%) than their capability to learn to prescribe (69%; p<0.001) and rated the support to their prescribing education lower still (43%; p<0.001). The findings were similar in men and women, first and second year trainees, and in different hospitals. Free text responses described an unreflective type of learning from experience in which participants tended to 'get by' when faced with complex problems.