BackgroundA coordinated stroke rehabilitation care team is considered optimal for supporting stroke survivors from diagnosis to recovery. Despite this recognition, many stroke survivors cannot access essential rehabilitation services. Furthermore, there is a lack of understanding of stroke patients’ and their caregivers’ rehabilitation needs and wishes. We sought to gain insight into healthcare and social structures from the perspective of patients and caregivers that can better support long-term stroke recovery.MethodsWe conducted individual interviews with 24 participants comprised of stroke survivors, spousal caregivers, stroke support group coordinators, and speech pathologist. Participants were recruited through three stroke survivor support groups. An empowerment lens was integrated into data analysis and data interpretation.ResultsTwo dominant themes captured participants’ experiences through stroke survivors’ trajectory of care. 1) Experiences of managing stroke. This theme identified stroke survivors and spousal caregivers’ experiences with stroke recovery, rehabilitation, and fulfilling unmet needs. 2) Resources of support. This theme described the social and financial support structures drawn upon to assist with stroke rehabilitation.ConclusionsThe study highlighted a lack of teamwork between stroke survivors, spousal caregivers, and health professionals. This fragmented care was compounded by inequities in rehabilitation programs and health services resulting in what appeared to be a disempowering rehabilitation process. Although stroke recovery groups were a significant source of support for stroke survivors and spousal caregivers, participants perceived they were overlooked, by stroke recovery healthcare providers, as a site for stroke recovery healthcare services. An empowerment approach to stroke rehabilitation involves collaboration between stroke survivors, caregivers, healthcare providers, health services, and existing community stroke support structures. Framing stroke based care through an empowerment lens may serve to address stroke rehabilitation inadequacies and inequities.

BackgroundFew medical teachers have received formal teaching education. Along with individual and organizational barriers to participation in teacher training programs, increasing numbers and altered distribution of physicians away from major teaching centers have increased the difficulty of attendance. Furthermore, it is not known if traditional faculty development formats are the optimal learning options given findings from existing studies document both positive and negative outcomes. There is a gap in research that explores how medical teachers learn to teach and also limited research regarding how medical teachers actually teach.The purpose of this study was to provide insight into how physicians describe their teaching of trainees, and the nature of their teaching development and improvement to inform faculty development programs.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 36 physicians, with a broad range of teaching experience, purposefully selected from five disciplines: Internal Medicine, Pediatrics, Psychiatry, Surgery, and Family Medicine. A qualitative, inductive approach was used to analyse the data.ResultsTeaching was described as being centered on the needs of individual trainees, but was dependent on patient presentation and environmental context. For this group of physicians learning to teach was perceived as a dynamic and evolving process influenced by multiple life experiences. The physicians had not learnt to teach through formal education and then put that learning into practice, but had learnt to teach and improve their teaching through their trial and errors teaching. Life experiences unconnected with the medical environment contributed to their knowledge of teaching along with limited formal learning to teach experiences. Teaching practice was influenced by peers and trainees, feedback, and observation. The findings suggest these medical teachers learn to teach along a continuum largely through their teaching practice.ConclusionThe findings suggested that the participants’ major resource for learning how to teach was informal experiential learning, both in and out of the workplace. This may have implications for faculty development strategies for medical teaching education.

Background Longitudinal coaching in residency programmes is becoming commonplace and requires iterative and collaborative discussions between coach and resident, with the shared development of goals. However, little is known about how goal development unfolds within coaching conversations over time and the effects these conversations have. We therefore built on current coaching theory by analysing goal development dialogues within resident and faculty coaching relationships. Methods This was a qualitative study using interpretive description methodology. Eight internal medicine coach–resident dyads consented to audiotaping coaching meetings over a 1‐year period. Transcripts from meetings and individual exit interviews were analysed thematically using goal co‐construction as a sensitising concept. Results Two themes were developed: (i) The content of goals discussed in coaching meetings focused on how to be a resident, with little discussion around challenges in direct patient care, and (ii) co‐construction mainly occurred in how to meet goals, rather than in prioritising goals or co‐constructing new goals. Conclusions In analysing goal development in the coach–resident relationships, conversations focused mainly around how to manage as a resident rather than how to improve direct patient care. This may be because academic coaching provides space separate from clinical work to focus on the stage‐specific professional identity development of a resident. Going forward, focus should be on how to optimise longitudinal coaching conversations to ensure co‐regulation and reflection on both clinical competencies and professional identity formation.

Background Therapeutic interventions for people with inflammatory arthritis (IA) increasingly involve multidisciplinary teams and strive to foster patient‐centred care and shared decision making. Participation in health‐care decisions requires patients to assert themselves and negotiate power in encounters with clinicians; however, clinical contexts often afford less authority for patients than clinicians. This disadvantage may inhibit patients' involvement in their own health care. Objective To identify communication attributes, IA patients use to influence and negotiate their treatment with members of their health‐care network. Method A qualitative social network approach was used to analyse data from a larger study that investigated IA patients' overall experiences of multidisciplinary care. Fourteen patients with IA attended individual semi‐structured interviews. Researchers used thematic analysis to identify patterns of assertiveness and influence in the data. Results Participants experienced loss of identity, control and agency in addition to the physical symptoms of IA. However, they had a sense of personal responsibility for managing their health care. Perceptions of health‐care team support enhanced patients' influence in treatment negotiations. Notably, there appeared to be an underlying tension between being empowered or disempowered. Discussion and conclusions The findings have significant implications for treatment decision communication approaches to IA care. A social network perspective may provide a pathway for clinicians to better understand the complexities of communication with their patients. This approach may reduce unequal power dynamics that occur within clinician/patient interactions and afford people with IA agency, control and affirmation of identity within their health‐care network.