MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Workshop for First-year Residents on Discussing “Code Status” in Hospitals

2001· article· en· W2001502398 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Kuhl, Betty Calam, Marvin J. Westwood

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaProvidence Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFacilitatorContext (archaeology)Medical educationPsychologyCurriculumActive listeningEmpathyMedicineNursingFamily medicinePedagogySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This workshop is designed to enhance the communication skills of physicians in addressing end-of-life resuscitation wishes with patients, to increase their understanding of barriers to physician-initiated discussions about “code status” in the hospital, and to deepen their awareness of the personal impact of confronting mortality for themselves and their patients. Description: Family physicians responsible for the development of the Behavioural Medicine Curriculum of the Family Practice Residency Program located at St. Paul's Hospital, a tertiary care institution in downtown Vancouver, collaborated with colleagues in palliative care and educational and counseling psychology to develop a two-and-a-half-hour workshop for residents on establishing code status. Family doctors and doctoral students in counseling psychology with training in advanced group process and communication skills serve as facilitators. A small-group format is used, with one facilitator per two to four residents, to a maximum of 15 people. Participants are seated in a circle, without tables or empty chairs. Group safety and trust are essential, enhanced by explicitly establishing guidelines for participation (starting and finishing on time, turning pagers off, professionalism, confidentiality, and suspending judgment). All facilitators have participated in the same simulation exercises expected of the residents. Facilitators model active listening, express empathy, and offer constructive feedback throughout their interactions with the group. The participants are invited to describe their primary concerns and emotions when facing discussions of code status in the hospital. Their responses are recorded on a flip chart and considered in the context of the literature pertaining to barriers in discussing resuscitation. The research on patients' perspectives on the impact of end-of-life discussions is also presented. After a short break, which includes refreshments, the group leader describes and demonstrates a “broaching the topic” simulation exercise with a co-facilitator. A suggested template for the interaction, meant as a guide rather than an algorithm, is summarized. This includes a “self check” to identify the physician's emotions around broaching the topic, an opening statement with a rationale for “why discuss this now,” normalization and reassurance, definition of resuscitation in lay terms, checking for understanding, and establishing follow-up plans. Residents practice the scenario in pairs, with a facilitator coaching, giving supportive feedback, and teaching effective communication skills. We ask each resident to reflect on the affective experience of being in both the patient role and the doctor role. Finally, the participants are invited to offer scenarios from their own clinical encounters to be enacted by the facilitators or resident volunteers. After a debriefing of the exercises, the participants are asked in closing to “state one thing you'll take from today that you will put into practice on the wards.” Discussion: This workshop is based on the principles of behavioral rehearsal as a way to enhance communication skills and on reflection as a method to increase the physician's self-awareness and empathy. Attention to group process creates a safe learning environment and the opportunity for active participation. The residents' evaluations for the pilot workshop averaged 3.0 on a three-point scale. Future workshops will incorporate research on patients' views about resuscitation discussions, a bibliography on communication skills for establishing code status, and educational materials on our newly developed hospital “DNR” policy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.011

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.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207