A Method to Enhance Student Teams in Palliative Care: Piloting the McMaster-Ottawa Team Observed Structured Clinical Encounter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The need for palliative and end-of-life care (PEOLC) education in prelicensure education has been identified. PEOLC requires effective collaborative teamwork. The competencies required for effective collaborative teamwork are only now emerging and methods to evaluate them must be developed. OBJECTIVE: The adaptation of the traditional Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) for assessment of a student team addressing palliative care issues was undertaken. The McMaster-Ottawa Team Observed Structured Clinical Encounter (TOSCE) is intended as a formative evaluation tool for both competencies in interprofessional collaboration for patient-centered practice and PEOLC. METHODS: Three stations based on palliative care scenarios were developed. From January 2007 to January 2008, a total of 141 students and 38 observers participated in the evaluation of three stations, with 6-7 students per group and two observers per station. Observers completed checklists for both PEOLC and interprofessional collaborative competencies and, after completing the TOSCEs, students and observers completed questionnaires on their feasibility and acceptability. RESULTS: Eighty-nine percent of the students and 44% of the observers were from medicine. Students and observers found the TOSCE to be an acceptable and feasible assessment tool for both sets of competencies. Reliability and validity data show that the items in both the clinical and interprofessional checklists fit well together, and interrater reliability is readily achieved. CONCLUSIONS: The new formative evaluation TOSCE tool, adapted from the traditional OSCE, was acceptable and feasible to students and observers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".