MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2591838442 · doi:10.1097/01.jaa.0000513358.76018.99

Communication is key to the MD-PA team

2017· editorial· en· W2591838442 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erik C Summers

Notice bibliographique

RevueJAAPA · 2017
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueNursing Roles and Practices
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMentorshipMedicineMedical educationFamily medicineManagementPsychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

FigureFigureMy first interaction with physician assistants (PAs) occurred when I was 8 years old and was rounding with my father in the hospital. My father was a PA. Through him, I saw what PAs could accomplish: the ability to flex to all areas of medicine, the capacity to maximize responsibilities through strong mentorship, and the ability to positively affect patient care. My father was a PA on the Alaska pipeline, worked on Indian reservations in North Dakota and South Dakota, assisted in cardiothoracic surgery in Alberta, and practiced inpatient and outpatient medicine in Arizona, Missouri, and Florida. The stories he told and the variety and flexibility of his career showed me what a productive MD-PA relationship could be. I carried those memories with me through medical school, through residency, and eventually to my first leadership position as a hospitalist at East Carolina University (ECU). When we started the hospitalist program at ECU in 2002, one of the first things I insisted on was incorporating PAs into our program. Some physicians in our group didn't understand how PAs would work with us, but I knew. My father had taught me. After 15 years of working with PAs and PA students at ECU, the Mayo Clinic, and Wake Forest University, I identified core building blocks that I believe are essential to developing a productive MD-PA relationship. First is the structure of the relationship. Some will espouse that MDs and PAs need to be “at the hip” working together. Others will say, just give PAs work to do and they can always call if they need you. I believe in neither approach. What I believe in is maximizing everyone's abilities, be they PAs or MDs. My favorite day working with a new PA or PA student is the first day, for it is on the first day that I usually surprise them. “These are your patients today,” I say. “You are their primary provider, not me. See the patients, listen to them, examine them, review all their numbers and tests, and then come back and tell me what you want to do for your patient.” One hundred percent of the time, a new PA or student working in our program will make a mistake or miss something. That is exactly what I hope for. I want them to be wrong. But I also want us to talk through their thoughts and their decision-making process. I believe that when you push against your limits of knowledge, you learn and you get stronger. Because the patient's potassium is consistently low, what is the magnesium level? What did we do with the vancomycin dosing since the trough is low? Why is the patient's C-reactive protein (CRP) elevated? Why did we get a CRP in the first place? What is the big picture here? What is the timetable for the patient's discharge? That structure will not be successful, though, without the second key part of the relationship, the support. Anyone in a new position is going to be unsure. My job is to reassure our new PAs and students that I am here for support and that our goals are aligned: we are here to help our patients the best way we can. I also relay that I am on the unit as well, and will be looking at our patients from a reasonable distance. I'm always accessible for any questions and encourage questions. But they are the ones who need to come up with a plan for the day. The art of the relationship is creating an environment where it is okay to fail. My sense over the years is that we all naturally are afraid to make a mistake. But our new PAs or students who push themselves to their maximum are almost always the best because they are pushing their limits. And that is when I know things are going well in our relationship. The satisfaction comes in seeing the rapid progress made using these principles. The student who struggled to see one patient on the first day is seeing five patients by the end of the week. Then I begin to receive fewer pages from the PAs because they have become stronger in their skills, their knowledge base, and their craft. Their growth is very satisfying to me. That blends in with the third essential part of the relationship, communication. If I am not accessible or open to conversation, it hurts not only the MD-PA relationship but also the provider-patient relationship. We, as a team, have to communicate. Paging me to ask a question is not a weakness—it is a strength! Without positive, open communication, things get lost, and things get missed. Ultimately those losses trickle down to the patient. I have always believed that two brains are better than one. If we are both thinking and communicating together about a patient, that patient benefits. And, as an aside, we do not forget about the nurse's brain that is at the bedside. If you have the nurse's brain working together with you also, you have a great working relationship and patients benefit from that. What do I think is a good MD-PA relationship? It is extending PAs to be the best they can be while supporting and communicating with them in their efforts to give patients the best care. That is the MD-PA relationship I have learned and honed over the past 15 years. I believe that relationship has been very satisfying for the 100 or so PAs I have worked with in my career. Those building blocks are what I learned from my father and how I try to give back to the PA profession in his memory.

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)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche, Charge 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: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,072
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,005

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 Opus0,054
Tête enseignante GPT0,480
Écart entre enseignants0,425 · 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
GenreÉditorial

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
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJAAPAMême sujetNursing Roles and PracticesTravaux en français237 207