137: Using SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendations) to Improve Resident Communication
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It is important for residents to communicate effectively with attending physicians, especially in critical on call situations. In recent years, handover mnemonics have gained attention as a way to improve communication. Although one of the best studied is SBAR (situation, background, assessment and recommendations), few publications have examined the effect of formal SBAR training and usage on resident to staff communication. To determine if a structured SBAR teaching session and an SBAR based communication checklist improves resident self-assessment of their ability to communicate in critical situations. A convenience sample of 22 paediatric residents at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario was recruited to participate in the study. Participants watched a video of a mock-code scenario and dictated an audio summary of the case, as though they were presenting to an attending physician. After baseline recordings, participants were randomly divided into three groups (stratified by year of training): SBAR teaching and checklist (group 1), SBAR teaching only (group 2), and no teaching or checklist (control group). Teaching consisted of a one-hour didactic session on SBAR. Participants then watched another mock-code scenario and recorded a second summary. After each recording, participants completed self-assessments using Likert-scales. Ultimately, there were nine residents in group 1, four residents in group 2 and nine residents in the control group. The year of training was evenly distributed within each group (ranging from year 1 to 3). Of the 13 residents who received SBAR teaching, 92% agreed that it was helpful. All nine residents who used the checklist felt that it was helpful. Residents in group 1 assessed themselves as being more organized in their presentation compared to baseline (P=0.03) which is also significant when compared to the change in the control group (P=0.02). Additionally there was a perceived improvement in their ability to handover all necessary information (P<0.01) but this was not significant when compared to the change in the control group (P=0.7). There was no significant difference in the change from baseline for either category of self-assessment when group 2 and the control group were compared. Formal SBAR teaching and use of an SBAR checklist were helpful in improving resident communication, as indicated by improved resident self-assessment of presentation organization from baseline compared to those with no teaching and no checklist. The effect of teaching alone was difficult to interpret due to a small sample size. Subsequent analyses will include blinded-staff evaluation of the recorded communications for content and organization.
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 | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,003 |
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 ».