Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Many medical students feel inadequately prepared to address end-of-life issues, including patient death. This study aimed to examine medical students' first experiences of the deaths of patients in their care. METHODS: Final-year medical students at the Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Western Ontario were invited to share their first experience of the death of a patient in their care. The students could choose to participate through telephone interviews, focus groups or e-mail. All responses were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Twenty-nine students reported experiencing the death of a patient in their care. Of these, 20 chose to participate in an interview, five in a focus group and four through e-mail. The issues that emerged were organised under the overlying themes of 'young', 'old' or 'unexpected' deaths and covered seven major themes: (i) preparation; (ii) the death event; (iii) feelings; (iv) the role of the clinical clerk; (v) differential factors between deaths; (vi) closure, and (vii) relationships. These themes generated a five-stage cyclical model of students' experiences of death, consisting of: (i) preparation; (ii) the event itself; (iii) the crisis; (iv) the resolution, and (v) the lessons learned. 'Preparation' touches on personal experience and pre-clinical instruction. 'The event itself' could be categorised as referring to a 'young' patient, an 'old' patient or a patient in whom death was 'unexpected'. In the 'resolution' phase, coping mechanisms included rationalisation, contemplation and learning. The 'lessons learned' shape medical students' experiences of future patient deaths and their professional identity. CONCLUSIONS: A tension between emotional concern and professional detachment was pervasive among medical students undergoing their first experience of the death of a patient in their care. How this tension was negotiated depended on the patient's clinical circumstances, supervisor role-modelling and, most importantly, the support of supervisors and peers, including debriefing opportunities. Faculty members and residents should be made aware of the complexities of a medical student's first experience of patient death and be educated regarding sympathetic debriefing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".