The ‘gut bucket’: a novel training tool for standardised patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Standardised patients (SPs) are often asked to portray complex physical roles in which authenticity is paramount; however, SPs come from a variety of backgrounds, and may lack knowledge of basic anatomy and physiology that can hamper their portrayal. This lack of knowledge can lead to gaps in accuracy and credibility. CONTEXT: In our efforts to bridge the gap and create training that would lead to authentic and confident portrayals, we developed the 'gut bucket'. This three-dimensional learning tool is tactile, portable, simple and affordable. INNOVATION: The 'gut bucket' has life-size abdominal organs made from fabric resting in a standard plastic washbasin. The organs can be easily removed and manipulated to simulate different disease states (for example: appendicitis, kidney stones or cholecystitis). The tool is visually engaging and durable, encouraging SPs to handle the organs and become familiar with their size and placement within the basin and on themselves. IMPLICATIONS: The SPs in our programme found that the 'gut bucket' provided a deeper level of knowledge, made them more confident in their portrayal and enhanced their experience, and they generally preferred the 'gut bucket' over traditional methods of training. This was demonstrated using 'gut bucket' training evaluation forms. The 'gut bucket' can easily be incorporated into training sessions to provide a kinaesthetic approach as well as increased engagement for the SPs. We hope others may benefit by sharing our experience with the 'gut bucket'.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".