This article explores how junior design professionals cope with value-based conflicts. We interviewed 22 design professionals about past and current value-based conflicts and the coping strategies adopted. Applying a grounded theory approach, we identified 11 types of coping strategies employed by junior design professionals. Our findings allowed us to clarify the nature of the coping process and localise value-based conflicts in the process of collaborative practice. During the coping process, professionals learn how to handle value-based conflicts through emotional release, developing a broader action repertoire, and engaging in timely action. We also identified transitions between specific coping strategies as junior designers learned from past conflicts and developed as a professional.
MULTIFILE
Junior design professionals experience conflicts in collaboration with others, with value differences being one of the issues influencing such conflicts. In a retrospective interview study with 22 design professionals, we collected 32 cases of perceived conflicts. We used a grounded theory approach to analyse these cases, resulting in five conflict categories that group 24 distinct value differences arising in 10 critical moments, an event that causes the value-based conflict. Thus, value differences are underlying the perceived conflicts of junior design professionals on many different occasions during collaboration with others. Conclusions are drawn on setting up guidelines for addressing values in co-design practices and supporting junior designers in their professional development.
MULTIFILE
Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate how the prescribing knowledge and skills of junior doctors in the Netherlands and Belgium develop in the year after graduation. We also analysed differences in knowledge and skills between surgical and nonsurgical junior doctors. Methods: This international, multicentre (n = 11), longitudinal study analysed the learning curves of junior doctors working in various specialties via three validated assessments at about the time of graduation, and 6 months and 1 year after graduation. Each assessment contained 35 multiple choice questions (MCQs) on medication safety (passing grade ≥85%) and three clinical scenarios. Results: In total, 556 junior doctors participated, 326 (58.6%) of whom completed the MCQs and 325 (58.5%) the clinical case scenarios of all three assessments. Mean prescribing knowledge was stable in the year after graduation, with 69% (SD 13) correctly answering questions at assessment 1 and 71% (SD 14) at assessment 3, whereas prescribing skills decreased: 63% of treatment plans were considered adequate at assessment 1 but only 40% at assessment 3 (P < .001). While nonsurgical doctors had similar learning curves for knowledge and skills as surgical doctors (P = .53 and P = .56 respectively), their overall level was higher at all three assessments (all P < .05). Conclusion: These results show that junior doctors' prescribing knowledge and skills did not improve while they were working in clinical practice. Moreover, their level was under the predefined passing grade. As this might adversely affect patient safety, educational interventions should be introduced to improve the prescribing competence of junior doctors.
MULTIFILE
