A Workshop for First-year Residents on Discussing “Code Status” in Hospitals
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: This workshop is designed to enhance the communication skills of physicians in addressing end-of-life resuscitation wishes with patients, to increase their understanding of barriers to physician-initiated discussions about “code status” in the hospital, and to deepen their awareness of the personal impact of confronting mortality for themselves and their patients. Description: Family physicians responsible for the development of the Behavioural Medicine Curriculum of the Family Practice Residency Program located at St. Paul's Hospital, a tertiary care institution in downtown Vancouver, collaborated with colleagues in palliative care and educational and counseling psychology to develop a two-and-a-half-hour workshop for residents on establishing code status. Family doctors and doctoral students in counseling psychology with training in advanced group process and communication skills serve as facilitators. A small-group format is used, with one facilitator per two to four residents, to a maximum of 15 people. Participants are seated in a circle, without tables or empty chairs. Group safety and trust are essential, enhanced by explicitly establishing guidelines for participation (starting and finishing on time, turning pagers off, professionalism, confidentiality, and suspending judgment). All facilitators have participated in the same simulation exercises expected of the residents. Facilitators model active listening, express empathy, and offer constructive feedback throughout their interactions with the group. The participants are invited to describe their primary concerns and emotions when facing discussions of code status in the hospital. Their responses are recorded on a flip chart and considered in the context of the literature pertaining to barriers in discussing resuscitation. The research on patients' perspectives on the impact of end-of-life discussions is also presented. After a short break, which includes refreshments, the group leader describes and demonstrates a “broaching the topic” simulation exercise with a co-facilitator. A suggested template for the interaction, meant as a guide rather than an algorithm, is summarized. This includes a “self check” to identify the physician's emotions around broaching the topic, an opening statement with a rationale for “why discuss this now,” normalization and reassurance, definition of resuscitation in lay terms, checking for understanding, and establishing follow-up plans. Residents practice the scenario in pairs, with a facilitator coaching, giving supportive feedback, and teaching effective communication skills. We ask each resident to reflect on the affective experience of being in both the patient role and the doctor role. Finally, the participants are invited to offer scenarios from their own clinical encounters to be enacted by the facilitators or resident volunteers. After a debriefing of the exercises, the participants are asked in closing to “state one thing you'll take from today that you will put into practice on the wards.” Discussion: This workshop is based on the principles of behavioral rehearsal as a way to enhance communication skills and on reflection as a method to increase the physician's self-awareness and empathy. Attention to group process creates a safe learning environment and the opportunity for active participation. The residents' evaluations for the pilot workshop averaged 3.0 on a three-point scale. Future workshops will incorporate research on patients' views about resuscitation discussions, a bibliography on communication skills for establishing code status, and educational materials on our newly developed hospital “DNR” policy.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,044 | 0,011 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».