Clinical teachers’ views on how teaching teams deliver and manage residency training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Residents learn by working in a multidisciplinary context, in different locations, with many clinical teachers. Although clinical teachers are collectively responsible for residency training, little is known about the way teaching teams function. AIM: We conducted a qualitative study to explore clinical teachers' views on how teaching teams deliver residency training. METHOD: Data were collected during six focus group interviews in 2010. RESULTS: The analysis revealed seven teamwork themes: (1) clinical teachers were more passionate about clinical expertise than about knowledge of teaching and teamwork; (2) residents needed to be informed about clinical teachers' shared expectations; (3) the role of the programme director in the teaching team needed further clarification; (4) the main topics of discussion in teaching teams were resident performance and the division of teaching tasks; (5) the structural elements of the organisation of residency training were clear; (6) clinical teachers had difficulty giving and receiving feedback and (7) clinical teachers felt under pressure to be accountable for team performance to external parties. CONCLUSION: The clinical teachers did not consider teamwork to be of any great significance to residency training. Teachers' views of professionalism and their own experiences as residents may explain their non-teamwork directed attitude. Efforts to strengthen teamwork within teaching teams may impact positively on the quality of residency training.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".