E-Module Learning for Scaling Serious Illness Communication Skills Teaching: A Pilot Study in Family Medicine and Palliative Care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Serious illness communication (SIC) competency is essential for health care professionals. However, many clinicians receive little-to-no SIC training, and there is little evidence as to which teaching method is most feasible to incorporate into postgraduate curricula. Two e-modules were created to adapt high-yield knowledge to deliver asynchronous, time-efficient, standardized communication skills teaching. This project evaluated SIC e-module teaching feasibility, learner and faculty perceptions toward e-module learning on this topic, as well as learner confidence and skill usage post-completion. Methods: Family Medicine residents and palliative care fellows from two training sites were invited to asynchronously complete the e-modules on their own time and complete a survey to assess attitudes, perceptions, and needs toward them and impact on SIC skills immediately and 1-month post-completion. Faculty from the main site were also invited to view the e-modules and complete a survey immediately afterward assessing attitudes, perceptions, and feasibility on SIC e-module learning. Results: In total, 19/50 (38%) learners completed the e-modules and post-training survey and 14/19 (73%) of those learners completed the 1-month follow-up survey. In total, 13/60 (22%) faculty completed the survey. Participants liked the structure and design of the e-modules and felt they were appropriate for their learners' level of training, were effective, time-efficient, and provided relevant SIC information. Case-based video demonstrations were identified as the most useful teaching method. Most learners intended to use new skills in clinical practice, rewatched both e-modules within 1 month of initial viewing, and reported using learned skills in practice. Conclusion: E-module training provides a standardized method to scale postgraduate SIC skills teaching asynchronously and was well liked by learners and faculty. Barriers exist to completing them outside of a core curriculum. Early data suggest e-modules can be used iteratively and further research is needed to determine how their use impacts communication confidence and competency.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».