153: Resident Attitudes and Adherence to I-PASS: A Qualitative Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The main I-PASS Study assesses the effectiveness of a Handoff Bundle (team training, verbal mnemonic, and electronic written handoff tool) at nine residency programs using quantitative data on patient safety outcomes as well as efficiency and provider satisfaction. The objective of this ancillary qualitative study was to describe in detail the resident experience of I-PASS implementation, in general and with respect to the individual components, in order to inform future refinements and implementation strategies. Focus groups with residents (n=54); and semi-structured interviews with faculty (n=28) and other personnel (n=10) were conducted at eight of nine I-PASS sites. A structured codebook was developed to facilitate descriptive coding of transcripts, and data were synthesized and summarized using content analysis. Triangulation was employed by comparing findings across data sources. Residents generally accept I-PASS to be a ‘gold standard’ form of handoff and value learning a structured approach. Junior residents and some senior residents feel more secure using a structured format and most recognize that the program enhances handoff quality and patient safety. Efficiency was the most common factor cited when residents expressed concern about I-PASS. They regard it as neither necessary nor feasible to follow I-PASS for every patient and situation. Across all sites, residents report adhering to I-PASS when observed, but adhering selectively in usual practice. Residents were more likely to adhere with complex patients, unfamiliar teams, and evening vs. morning handoff. They also report using elements of the I-PASS mnemonic variably, with “synthesis by receiver” rarely used outside the context of observation. Anything perceived to lengthen handoff was unwelcome. Most residents value the computerized written handoff tool, but at sites with significant tool usability problems, dissatisfaction extended to the whole I-PASS program. The degree to which resident feedback was sought and acted upon moderated this. Perceptions of the faculty role varied. Residents generally understood that faculty have different handoff needs and practices, so did not perceive faculty as hypocritical if they did not adhere to I-PASS themselves. The experiences of observation and feedback were mixed. Residents reported variation in faculty feedback styles; some residents found it constructive while others found it ‘nitpicky’. Residents felt that the I-PASS program improved safety, but had concerns about efficiency. Optimizing computerized handoff tools, efficiency of verbal handoffs, and feedback to residents will be important in future refinements and implementation efforts.
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 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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.
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 ».