Informed Consent Skills in Internal Medicine Residency: How Are Residents Taught, and What Do They Learn?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Obtaining informed consent is an essential skill in internal medicine (IM). The authors' informal observations and formal testing revealed deficiencies in residents' informed consent skills. This study evaluated how residents acquire informed consent skills and how informed consent skills are addressed in Canadian IM residency programs. METHOD: A questionnaire was delivered to all 16 IM program directors in Canada, asking how informed consent is taught and assessed. At the University of Saskatchewan IM residency program, residents were assessed through an objective structured clinical examination station, written examination, and a self-assessment questionnaire. RESULTS: No consistent approach to teaching or evaluating informed consent skills exists within Canadian IM programs. Program directors and residents identified informal mentoring by residents as an important learning modality. Although residents performed well in discussing procedural indications and techniques, discussing risks was inadequate. Residents focused on general and minor risks but avoided discussing serious risks and had difficulty discussing the frequency of complications. Residents lacked a structured approach to assessing capacity and often assessed only comprehension. Residents were unfamiliar with concepts such as material risk, implied consent, and therapeutic privilege. CONCLUSION: Explicit training in informed consent skills is urgently needed. Informal mentoring must be recognized as an important training method for informed consent and supported by appropriate teaching and evaluation strategies to ensure that resident-instructors do so effectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".