Interprofessional care review with medical residents: Lessons learned, tensions aired – A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrated interprofessional care teams are the focus of Canadian and American recommendations about the future of health care. Keeping with this, a family medicine teaching site developed an educational initiative to expose trainees to interprofessional care processes and learning (Interprofessional Care Review; IPC). A formative evaluation pilot study was completed using one-on-one interviews and a focus group (n = 6) with family medicine residents. A semi-structured guide was utilized regarding: knowledge, skills and attitudes related to interprofessional care; their experience of the processes utilized in IPC. Data were analyzed using content analysis. Residents' perspectives on their learning revolved around four themes: changes to understanding and practice of interprofessional care; personal impact of IPC; learning about other health professionals; tension and challenges of IPC learning and clinical implementation. Residents valued the educational experience, but identified that faculty supervisors provided "mixed messages" in the value of collaborating with other health professionals. Implications regarding future educational and research opportunities are discussed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".