MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1995865616 · doi:10.1097/00001888-200211000-00033

An Advanced Communication Skills Course for Fourth-year, Post-clerkship Students

2002· article· en· W1995865616 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Angela Towle, Joanne M. Hoffman

Notice bibliographique

RevueAcademic Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCourse (navigation)Medical educationCommunication skillsHigher educationPsychologyMedicineMathematics educationEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: A novel five-module advanced communication skills course entitled "Doctor-Patient Relationships" was planned and implemented in 2000-01 at the University of British Columbia (UBC). The course was part of the final four-month component of the new MD undergraduate program: Effective Skills for Medical Practice. The goals of the communication skills course were to (1) address problems experienced by the students so far; (2) address deficiencies in achieving the UBC exit competencies; (3) help the students pass the Medical Council of Canada examinations, in particular objectives related to the Considerations of the Legal, Ethical, and Organizational aspects of the practice of medicine (CLEO); and (4) help students prepare for their roles beyond undergraduate medicine (residency, independent practice). DESCRIPTION: The course was developed by an interdisciplinary team (family practice, pathology, pediatrics, psychiatry, surgery) with input from students. The broad strengths and weaknesses of their communication skills training were identified by seven third-year medical students who kept logs over the course of their clinical clerkships to document their learning of communication skills. Analysis of these logs plus feedback meetings with the students revealed attitudinal and skills issues that needed to be addressed in the new course. The goals and principles of the course were in part agreed upon by focus groups with students, attended by faculty observers, to ensure their relevance to students. The first module "Beyond the Mask: Surviving and Thriving in Residency Training" is designed to focus students' attention on the personal relevance of developing excellence in communication skills in preparation for residency training. It includes a video of residents talking about their experiences of communication problems to trigger reflection and discussion. In the remaining four modules the students are required to put communication skills together with their medical knowledge. Each module includes pre-readings, video demonstrations (in sessions 4 and 5), practice with standardized patients (total of 14 scenarios) and structured feedback from SPs, students, and tutor. The themes of the sessions are "Dealing with Emotionally Challenging Patient Situations (informing about bad news), "Compliance and Patient Information," "Informed Consent and Shared Decision Making," and "Difficult Physician-Patient Encounters." Each module lasts two hours. The course was implemented for 120 students, facilitated by 14 tutors (seven to eight students per group). DISCUSSION: Student involvement in many different ways provided an important reality check and made us think about how to present the new course so that it was relevant and interesting to students. Attention to student input was a major contributor to the good evaluations given the course. Students rated the course highly: the relevance of the weekly themes was rated 4.21 on a five-point scale; the effectiveness of the SP interviews, 4.10; the effectiveness of the group discussion and feedback, 4.18; and overall course effectiveness in enhancing communication skills, 3.91. The tutors also rated the course highly, and the students rated the tutors highly. Minor changes will be made to the course next year based on the specific suggestions for improvement, which were identified.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,200
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,203
Tête enseignante GPT0,507
Écart entre enseignants0,303 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations35
Publié2002
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAcademic MedicineMême sujetPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareTravaux en français237 207