Mandatory communication training of all employees with patient contact
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: In 2010 a communication program that included mandatory communication skills training for all employees with patient contact was developed and launched at a large regional hospital in Denmark. OBJECTIVE: We describe the communication program, the implementation process, and the initial assessment of the process to date. METHOD: The cornerstone of the program is a communication course based on the Calgary Cambridge Guide and on the experiences of several efficacy and effectiveness studies conducted at the same hospital. The specific elements of the program are described in steps and a preliminary assessment based on feedback from the departments will be presented. RESULTS: The elements of the communication program are as follows: (1) education of trainers; (2) courses for health professionals employed in clinical departments; (3) education of new staff; (4) courses for health professionals in service departments; and (5) maintenance of communication skills. Thus far, 70 of 86 staff have become certified trainers and 17 of 18 departments have been included in the program. CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Even though the communication program is resource-intensive and competes with several other development projects in the clinical departments, the experiences of the staff and the managers are positive and the program continues as planned.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".