Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37559079›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2023

Micromanagement in clinical supervision: a scoping review.

Jihyun Lee, Solmoe Ahn, Marcus A Henning, J M Monica van de Ridder, Vijay Rajput

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jihyun LeeDepartment of Dental Education & Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, South Korea. leeji1@snu.ac.kr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9357-5345
Solmoe AhnDental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7764-4651
Marcus A HenningCentre for Medical and Health Sciences Education, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1135-3464
J M Monica van de RidderCollege of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, Michigan, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3401-3523
Vijay RajputDepartment of Medical Education, Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Allopathic Medicine, Nova Southeastern University, Florida, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5203-5342

Funding

Ministry of Education NRF-2020S1A5A8041947Ministry of Science & ICT NRF-2021R1F1A1056465
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Micromanagement in clinical supervision in health professions education generally refers to supervision characterized by unproductive excessive control and attention to detail. It can affect autonomy, competence, well-being of learners, teamwork, and ultimately patient care. Despite its potential negative impact on learners and patients, no comprehensive review of this phenomenon has been conducted. This scoping review aims to explore the breadth of extant literature concerning micromanagement in clinical supervision in health professions education and map the body of research on the topic. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: Extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR). We searched eight databases, and the final review and analysis comprised 12 articles that examined micromanagement in clinical supervision across health professions education. Micromanagement was conceptualized as ineffective supervisory practices such as undue scrutiny, excessive control, domination, and ineffectual leadership. Conversely, alternatives to micromanagement included entrusting or granting autonomy, coaching for independent practice, and providing effective supervision and leadership. Overall, micromanagement was attributed to individual behavioral and personality factors, such as distrust, perfectionism, self-conviction, and low self-esteem. The consequences of micromanagement included inadequacies in professional development and well-being of trainees and patient care, and organizational dysfunction. Suggested solutions included entrusting or empowering trainees with encouragement and clear communication, open communication efforts by trainees, organizational management for quality supervision, and faculty's valuing both clinical and educational goals. Current literature on micromanagement-in the context of clinical supervision in health professions education-was found to be sparse, implying a need for more rigorous research and discourse on this understudied area. The findings can be used to recognize, solve, and prevent the prevalent, and often unrecognized, phenomena of micromanagement, which may improve clinical supervision, the professional development of trainees and faculty, organizational management, and ultimately patient care.

Indexed as

FacultyPreceptorshipHumansLeadershipClinical supervisionHealth professions education (HPE)Micromanagement

Identifiers

PMID37559079
PMCPMC10410949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.