P030: Multisource feedback for emergency medicine residents: different, relevant and useful information
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction/Innovation Concept: Feedback provided to residents by physicians emphasize the medical expertise competency and may limit the attention paid to other CanMEDS competencies. Recent years have seen the emergence of the concept of multisource feedback, a process through which different members of the care team assess and provide feedback to residents. This approach is considered one of the best for providing relevant feedback on competencies that are less often addressed by physicians. To date, very few studies have explored emergency residents’ perceptions following feedback from their physicians, nurses with whom they have worked, and patients they have treated. Methods: In the emergency department of a tertiary-care university hospital, 10 emergency medicine residents participated, on a voluntary basis, in individual and semi-structured group interviews, three months after having received multisource feedback. Two researchers then qualitatively analyzed the data collected in those interviews. Thematic content analysis using QDA Miner identified dominant themes in the residents’ perceptions. Curriculum, Tool, or Material: Multisource feedback tool: Three questionnaires were designed to gather assessment from different sources: physicians, nurses, and patients. The questionnaires were adapted from those created by Joshi and colleagues for use in a study of residents’ competency in interpersonal and communication skills. During a nine months period, the residents distributed questionnaires to physicians, nurses, and patients with whom they felt they had enough interactions during their clinical shifts. Data from the questionnaires were compiled by two educators that prepared individual feedback reports for each resident. An educator was asked to conduct individual meetings with each resident to present the feedback report and discuss its content. Conclusion: Each source provided relevant comments that differed significantly in their content. Physicians focused primarily on medical expertise, whereas nurses addressed competencies related to management, collaboration, and communication, and patients commented on the competencies of professionalism and communication. Residents concluded that obtaining feedback from nurses and patients was not only acceptable but useful in their training. Several reported modifying certain behaviours after receiving the multisource feedback. Multisource feedback appears to have obvious teaching potential to provide feedback on competencies other than medical expertise in emergency residents.
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 | 0,010 | 0,033 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,018 | 0,004 |
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 ».