Clinicians prefer simple educational tools for implementing practice change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Successful implementation of practice change requires educational tools that engage and motivate clinicians. AIM: To examine clinician usage and preference for different educational tools when a multifaceted strategy was used for implementation of new recommendations for managing newborns at risk of sepsis. METHODS: Seminars, web-based tutorial, handouts, pocket cards and web-based management algorithm were used to educate health professionals. Ninety-two clinicians attended seminars and completed feedback questionnaires that included three questions assessing knowledge of the recommendations. After 3 months, an electronic survey containing the same questions was sent to 41 key stakeholders (staff neonatologists, trainee physicians, nurse practitioners and respiratory therapists) who provided patient care during the implementation period. Compliance with recommendations was assessed by chart audit. RESULTS: Seminar content was helpful to 97% of participants and 88% were comfortable using the recommendations. Response rate for the 3-month survey was 80%. The most frequently used and useful tools were pocket cards (76%) and seminars (76%); 79% continued to use the card. Only one respondent used the web tutorial and four used the algorithm. There was no significant difference in percent correct responses to the questions between the two timepoints (p > 0.05). Compliance with the recommendations was 83%. CONCLUSIONS: When provided with different educational tools, clinicians prefer pocket cards and seminars - tools that are simple and readily accessed.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 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".