MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2038692182 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03339.x

A new communication skills course for junior doctors

2009· article· en· W2038692182 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jonathan Beard, David Beard, Elizabeth English

Notice bibliographique

RevueMedical Education · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCLARITYContext (archaeology)Foundation (evidence)Communication skills trainingMedical educationProcess (computing)PsychologyQuality (philosophy)Communication skillsPlan (archaeology)Conflict resolutionNursingPublic relationsMedicineComputer sciencePolitical scienceLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Context and setting‘Needs-based communication’ (NBC) is a new approach to improving doctors’ communication skills. Based on Marshall Rosenberg’s widely recognised system of Nonviolent Communication™, NBC has its roots in international conflict resolution (http://www.lifeatwork.co.uk). Since 2005, over 800 junior doctors in the UK Foundation Programme have received 2 days of NBC training in two deaneries (mainly South Yorkshire and South Humber Deanery). Why the idea was necessary Although junior doctors often evaluate their own communication positively, they frequently receive the opposite feedback. The NBC model has a wider remit than other (usually consultation-based) medical communication models, such as the Calgary–Cambridge model. It aims to tackle generic skills, including those involved in resolving difficulties, building trust (especially across interdisciplinary boundaries), avoiding complaints and defusing anger. Crucially, it also tackles communication with colleagues. These generic skills are key Foundation Programme competencies. What was done The process is unusual in that it focuses not just on patients’ needs, but also on the needs of doctors. Often, but not always, these coincide with the needs of a patient or colleague (e.g. for quality care, efficiency, clarity, completion, keeping agreements). Differences can arise in how people try to meet these needs and it is on this strategic level that conflicts can occur. Conflicts may be prevented or resolved by learning how best to express one’s needs and strategies. The NBC model pinpoints four main principles which, respectively, encourage the user to: distinguish objective observation from subjective evaluation (which others may hear as blame); understand feelings as the expression of information about whether a need is met or unmet, and thus to create a ‘safe’ environment for expressing feelings (rather than suggesting that feelings should always be voiced); know how to express one’s needs or values in a way that is most likely to be heard and understood by others, and suggest a clear strategy to meet one’s own needs, while taking other people’s needs into account. Doctors also learn to listen differently to people who are angry or upset. Instead of focusing on the person’s anger or blame, they learn to hear ‘beneath’ the words for more fundamental information: namely, the unmet needs that the person is (in one way or another) trying to express. Thus, they learn to see a person’s behaviour as an attempt (or strategy) to meet a need. This immediately opens up more creative and empathic ways of dealing with the situation as the listener can understand the needs or values that underpin the behaviour, even if the behaviour itself is not acceptable to them. Once someone’s needs have been identified, doctors can be quick to find ways to meet them, using strategies which are more beneficial and take into account the needs of everyone involved. Evaluation of results and impact A total of 83% (n = 557) of the doctors completed an end-of-course evaluation of their NBC training. Their overall response was strongly positive and included the view that NBC can support interviews for specialty training. The doctors’ self-perceived communication skills ability increased from a median of 4.2 before the course to 8.1 afterwards (on a 10-point scale). Finally, many doctors expressed a desire to have such training made available to nurses and other health care professionals.

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)0,004
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: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,817
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,004
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 ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,086
Tête enseignante GPT0,496
Écart entre enseignants0,410 · 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'étudeSans objet
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

Citations7
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMedical EducationMême sujetPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareTravaux en français237 207