An interactive educational workshop to improve end of life communication skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: An understanding of legal, ethical, and cultural concerns and an ability to communicate when faced with clinical dilemmas are integral to the end of life decision-making process. Yet teaching practicing clinicians these important skills in addressing conflict situations is not strongly emphasized. METHODS: A one-day interactive continuing education workshop was designed to improve interactions among multiprofessional intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians, their colleagues, and families in a range of end of life situations using standardized families and colleagues (SF/SCs). Workshop participants completed preworkshop and postworkshop evaluations. Data were analyzed using the McNemar test for paired categorical data to evaluate changes in comfort, knowledge, and skill. RESULTS: The majority of evaluation respondents were nursing professionals, while only one physician (of two in attendance) responded. Statistically significant improvement was seen in all comfort levels, except when approaching cultural differences. Expectations were exceeded according to 76.2% of responses, while 82.4% rated SF/SCs "excellent" for improving communication skills and comfort levels with ethical and legal dilemmas. Peer discussions were highly valued in meeting educational objectives (95.2% good or excellent), and 95.2% rated achievement of personal learning objectives good or excellent. Qualitative data supported a high overall perception of success and achievement of educational objectives. DISCUSSION: An interactive workshop can be a valuable educational intervention for building capacity and confidence in end of life communication skills and ethical and legal knowledge for health care providers; further physician involvement is required to extrapolate results to this population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".