Short CommunicationExecutive skills for medical faculty: a workshop description and evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the healthcare system continues to change, healthcare professionals will need to assume an increasing number of administrative and management responsibilities. The goal of this article is to describe a two-day workshop on Executive Skills for Medical Faculty and the results of an evaluation conducted one year later. This workshop consisted of specific modules on analyzing time-management skills, determining goals and priorities, improving time-management strategies, assessing leadership styles and skills, and conducting effective meetings. The workshop evaluation consisted of an immediate post-workshop questionnaire administered to all of the participants, and semi-structured interviews, conducted on the telephone, with half of the attendees. Both evaluations were designed to assess perceptions of the workshop's usefulness and areas of individual change. Feedback from the participants immediately after the workshop indicated an overall satisfaction with the workshop content and methodology and a desire to try new time-management strategies. Evaluation of the workshop one year later indicated that the majority of the participants had determined their priorities more clearly, altered their time-management strategies, and planned more effective meetings. Less change was noted in the area of leadership styles and skills. Both the immediate and delayed workshop evaluations indicated that the most useful sessions were those devoted to determining goals and priorities, time management and effective meetings. These results suggest that a two-day workshop can improve health care professionals' administrative and management skills in certain areas. A longer workshop and built-in 'follow-up' activities would enhance the potential for 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 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 | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".