MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2317263484 · doi:10.1097/01.eem.0000464080.20744.10

After the Match

2015· article· en· W2317263484 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thomas Cook

Notice bibliographique

RevueEmergency Medicine News · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMalpracticeQuarter (Canadian coin)PsychologyMedical educationMedicineLawPolitical scienceHistory

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

FigureFigureResidency is a 1,000-day process that prepares you for the next 10,000 days of your life. Real-life issues, from legal to financial to interpersonal, take on an entirely different light once you enter independent practice. But residents can — and should — develop three skills to prepare for these future challenges. First, learn about malpractice. Roughly two-thirds of you will go through this, and male physicians are twice as likely to be sued as women. Truth be told, however, the risk of ending up in court with someone pointing a finger at you is very small. The vast majority of cases never go to trial. About one-quarter settle, and of the five percent that go to trial, 90 percent end in favorable decisions for the physicians. Still, malpractice ends up being feared like shark attacks. They are not common, but they have a lot of teeth. An effective way to learn about the medicolegal system is to get involved in mock trials that are often conducted by teaching hospitals using attorneys from a local malpractice carrier. You will see how trials are conducted and how attorneys behave in the courtroom. We put on mock trials regularly at our program, and this is one conference in which you do not see anyone fall asleep. Also find out which of your faculty members are expert witnesses in malpractice litigation. What are the key issues in cases they have reviewed? Learning from others' mistakes allows you to focus on what not to miss in your patient care. Residents must also acquire basic information about personal finance. You will read lots of articles that provide a list of things to do to secure your financial future. But you are a resident; you do not have the time. But doing just two things will make a difference. First, find a financial advisor. Most financial advisors will fall over themselves to get you as a client. Not because you have any money, but because you will make a lot in the future. Good financial advisors will guide you through all the anxiety. They will calm you down when you panic about your crazy student loan debt. They will hold your hand and tell you about the other successful physician clients they have that went through the exact same process you are going through now. Finding a good one is easy; just ask your attendings. They all want to retire someday, and they have been investing money for years to do so. Secondly, learn how to use Quicken or some other personal finance software. Doing this will teach you the most important lesson about your future finances and how money flows into and out of your life. You will really be able to see how you spend your money. Try to complete both of these tasks before you are halfway through residency. It will make life easier when potential employers start throwing big numbers at you to join their practice. The last skill to acquire is the most important. Learn how to conduct a “crucial conversation.” Interpersonal relationships create the most happiness but also the most chaos in your life. It is ironic that the most intense arguments you will ever have will be with the people you profess to care about the most. This includes your spouse, your children, your peers, and eventually your partners. You need to be able to identify which conversations are tricky and how to create a safe environment in which to negotiate. Learning how to have a civil conversation with your spouse about money or where to spend the holidays is just as important as a tough conversation with a demanding patient and his family. If you are interested in learning more about how to do this, I suggest the book Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High by Kerry Patterson, et al. It is a quick read, and you will immediately learn strategies for solving problems that you encounter every day. Access the linksin EMN by reading this on our website or in our free iPad app, both available atwww.EM-News.com. Comments?Write to us at[email protected].

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut 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: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,891
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,156

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,001
Communication savante0,0070,005
Science ouverte0,0010,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,8910,739

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 Opus0,193
Tête enseignante GPT0,503
Écart entre enseignants0,310 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

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

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEmergency Medicine NewsMême sujetMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesTravaux en français237 207