Improving Knowledge in Palliative Medicine with a Required Hospice Rotation for Third-Year Medical Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Liaison Committee for Medical Education requires accredited U.S. and Canadian medical schools to teach end-of-life care. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a new required curriculum in palliative medicine for third-year medical students. METHOD: Beginning in July 2001, a required four-day (32 hour) curriculum was piloted as part of an ambulatory month in the 12-week medicine clerkship. Students spent Day 1 in the classroom learning core concepts regarding hospice, palliative care, and symptom management. A two-hour session with a standardized patient to break bad news was included. Students spent Days 2 and 3 making home visits or participating in inpatient care. Day 4 was spent in the classroom reviewing cases they had seen with interdisciplinary faculty, making presentations on assigned topics, and discussing professional self-care. Students completed a self-awareness project. Educational outcomes were measured with the students' completion of five pre- and postcourse assessment instruments: (1) self-assessment of competency, (2) attitudes, (3) concerns, (4) a 50-item, multiple-choice knowledge test, and (5) an assessment of elements of the course. RESULTS: Analysis of 127 paired evaluations showed significant improvements in three instruments: 56% improvement in competence (p <.0001), 29% reduction in concern (p <.0001), and 23% improvement in knowledge (p <.0001). There were no significant changes attitudes (p =.35). CONCLUSION: This 32-hour required curriculum in palliative medicine for third-year medical students improved knowledge. They came to the course with appropriate attitudes that did not change.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".