The role of collegial interaction in continuing professional development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Many physicians seek information from colleagues over other sources, highlighting the important role of interaction in continuing professional development (CPD). To guide the development of CPD opportunities, this study explored the nature of cancer-related questions faced by general surgeons, and how interaction with colleagues addressed those questions. METHODS: This study involved thematic analysis of field notes collected through observation and transcripts of telephone interviews with 20 surgeons, two pathologists, one medical oncologist, and one radiation oncologist affiliated with six community hospitals participating in multidisciplinary cancer conferences by videoconference in one region of Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: Six multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) were observed between April and September 2006, and 11 interviews were conducted between December 2006 and January 2007. Sharing of clinical experience made possible collective decision making for complex cancer cases. Physicians thought that collegial interaction improved awareness of current evidence, patient satisfaction with treatment plans, appropriate care delivery, and continuity. By comparing proposed treatment with that of the group and gaining exposure to decision making for more cases than they would see in their own practices, physicians developed clinical expertise that could be applied to future cases. Little collegial interaction occurred outside these organized sessions. DISCUSSION: These findings highlight the role of formally coordinated collegial interaction as an important means of CPD for general surgeons. Investment may be required for infrastructure to support such efforts and for release of health professional time for participation. Further research is required to examine direct and indirect outcomes of collegial interaction.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".