Anaesthetists understand their work in different ways

Editor—We read with interest the investigation by Larsson and colleagues1 reporting their qualitative study of how trainee anaesthetists understand their work. We congratulate them on their decision to pursue this type of enquiry. Only by addressing those aspects of anaesthetic expertise, which cannot be set out in syllabuses and measured as competencies, can a true picture of the complexity of our work be drawn. We have a few questions and would be interested to read the authors' responses.

First, we liked the categories that the data suggested, but we wondered if the authors had thought of arranging them into any sort of hierarchy? (We note that they did so with the four categories which they used for experienced anaesthetists in their previous study.2)

In the Lancaster expertise study3 we found that, as trainees gain experience, they seem to move from one level of understanding to another, which is not completely separate but rather incorporates and builds on what went before. Hence we suggest, in contrast to the findings of Larsson and colleagues, that changes to more comprehensive ways of understanding do in fact take place over time and this is brought about by the developing relationship between tacit and explicit knowledge. Furthermore, we would challenge the authors' assertion that their category F—where experience from patients is used to learn new things—is exclusive to trainees. One of our unexpected findings was the importance which ‘fully-formed’ experts attach to the potential for continuing learning from working with colleagues.3

In the UK, there are moves to train non-physicians to administer anaesthesia. Central to this debate is the problem of how such practitioners might work, not only in the practical limits to their activities, but also in how they understand and conceptualize their work. We note that the first of Larsson and colleagues' transcripts refers to a trainee supervising a nurse and how he/she recognized when the nurse had a problem. We recognize that this is not directly within the scope of their work, but to what extent would the authors expect to see the same breadth of understanding in a nurse anaesthetist?

Finally, we would endorse the authors' implication that defining different aspects of the anaesthetist's role will help trainees (and specialists) further their understanding.

Although not a finding from our study, we have previously attempted to suggest a number of roles or styles related to anaesthetic practice. These are in no particular order and there may of course be others, but we offer them as a further contribution to the conceptualization of anaesthetic work:

  1. Craftsman. An anaesthetist who takes pleasure in the simple exercise of his/her hard-won professional skill.
  2. Workhorse. An anaesthetist who sees their role as ‘getting the job done’.
  3. Salesman. An anaesthetist who is not as competent as they can make themselves appear by their clinical behaviour.
  4. Engineer. Someone who thinks mechanistically about the process of anaesthesia, making the patient follow a predetermined plan where possible.
  5. Ecologist. Someone who works in response to the individuality of the patient (these last two styles are drawn from Klemola's objectivistic and reactive types4).
  6. Priest. Someone who is aware of the mysteries of anaesthesia—the almost mystical temporary loss of self which although often disregarded by anaesthetists, is of great significance to patients.
  7. Virtuoso. A true master.

A.F. Smith1, D.S. Goodwin1, M. Mort1 and C. Pope2

1 Lancaster, UK 2 Southampton, UK


 
Editor—We thank Smith and colleagues for their interest in our study,1 and would like to respond to the points that they have raised.

Concerning the structural relationship between the categories of description, we have in a previous study reported the different ways specialist anaesthetists understand their work. We described a work map with the understandings arranged in a hierarchical way.2 In the present study,1 trainee anaesthetists gave expression to four similar ways of understanding work (B–E in the article). For the young trainees, anaesthesia work is still a fairly diffuse phenomenon and their ways of understanding are not as clear as those of specialist anaesthetists. We are convinced that the categories in the trainees' group are hierarchically related, but this is a result inferred from the previous study. However, understanding A, ‘the novice’, was not found among specialist anaesthetists and should be regarded as a lower level of understanding work than understanding B.

One result of our two studies is that the novice way of understanding was found only among the trainees. Obviously, young anaesthetists during training move from understanding A to B. They will meet situations were protocol driven anaesthesia will not work and they will be forced to take the step from understanding A to B, after considering the individual patient's physiology. In addition, all four types of understanding of the specialists were represented already among trainees, indicating that anaesthetists normally do not change their understanding during years of work. This is in line with the findings of educational research that competence development preferentially takes place within the confines of present understanding.5 To acquire a new way of understanding, confrontation with another's meaning (reflective dialogue) or meeting a provoking situation is necessary.6

‘The learner’ was the predominant way of understanding work for some of the trainees but for none of the specialist anaesthetists. In the phenomenographic method we used, only the predominant ways of understanding the phenomenon in question will be defined. Therefore ‘the learner’ was not defined as a category in the study on specialist anaesthetists. We agree with Smith and colleagues that many anaesthetists do use experience from patients for learning.

The question about nurse anaesthetists is not within the scope of our studies and this part of our answer is my (JL) personal view. I believe that young nurse anaesthetists are, and should be, relying more on protocols and detailed guidelines, whereas experienced nurse anaesthetists can work independently considering the vast amount of tacit knowledge that they express in their work. The anaesthetist should, nevertheless, be very much present in the theatres of which he or she is in charge (usually two or three theatres at a time). This means going in and out at regular intervals, depending on what is going on in theatre and on the nurse's experience.

The object of phenomenography is to study the variation in which phenomena in the world are conceived of or understood. Our two studies tell us about two things: anaesthesia work as understood by anaesthetists, and the variation in the ways anaesthetists understand work. We do not regard the categories as a typology of anaesthetists. However, we do admit that some of Smith and colleagues' well-found metaphors of anaesthetist styles bear a clear resemblance to some of the categories in our studies.

J. Larsson, I. Holmström, E. Lindberg and U. Rosenqvist

Uppsala, Sweden

References

1 Larsson J, Holmström I, Lindberg E, Rosenqvist U. Trainee anaesthetists understand their work in different ways: implications for specialist education. Br J Anaesth 2004; 92: 381–7[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2 Larsson J, Holmström I, Rosenqvist U. Professional artist, good Samaritan, servant and co-ordinator: four ways of understanding the anaesthetist's work. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2003; 47: 787–93[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

3 Smith AF, Goodwin D, Mort M, Pope C. Expertise in practice: an ethnographic study exploring acquisition and use of knowledge in anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2003; 91: 319–28[Abstract/Free Full Text]

4 Klemola UM, Norros L. Analysis of the clinical behaviour of anaesthetists: recognition of uncertainty as the basis of practice. Med Educ 1997; 31: 449–56[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

5 Sandberg J. Understanding competence at work. Harvard Business Rev 2001; 79: 24–6

6 Marton F, Booth S. The path of learning. In: Marton F, Booth S, eds. Learning and Awareness. Mahwah, New Yersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass, 1997; 139–42





This Article
Full Text (PDF)
E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me when E-letters are posted
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Disclaimer
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by Smith, A.F.
Articles by Rosenqvist, U.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Smith, A.F.
Articles by Rosenqvist, U.