MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068808313 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e31824e0fb7

Using standardized family members to teach communication skills and ethical principles to critical care trainees*

2012· article· en· W2068808313 on OpenAlexaff
James Downar, Kerry Knickle, John Granton, Laura Hawryluck

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubspecialtyMedical educationMedicineCommunication skillsSession (web analytics)Communication skills trainingNursingFamily medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the effectiveness of standardized family members for improving communication skills and ethical and legal knowledge of senior intensive care unit trainees. DESIGN: Multimodal evaluation of mixed-methods educational intervention. SETTING: Postgraduate critical care medicine academic program. SUBJECTS: Postgraduate subspecialty critical care medicine trainees. INTERVENTION: Communication workshop featuring a short didactic session and four simulated family meetings using trained professionals as standardized family members. MEASUREMENTS: Ethical and legal knowledge and comfort with communication (before and after the workshop) and communication skill (during the workshop). MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-one postgraduate critical care medicine subspecialty trainees participated in the workshop over a 5-yr period. Ethical and legal knowledge and comfort scores improved significantly among trainees who participated in the workshop. Ninety percent of trainees felt that the workshop had met or exceeded their expectations and would recommend it to other trainees. Ninety-eight percent of trainees felt that the workshop had met the highest priority learning objectives they identified. Communication scores showed a trend towards improvement over the course of the workshop, although the improvements were not significant. Participants reflecting on the workshop >1 yr later overwhelmingly felt that it had prepared them for real communication challenges in training and practice. CONCLUSIONS: This workshop was effective for improving ethical and legal knowledge and comfort with communication among critical care medicine trainees. Participants overwhelmingly felt that it had met their learning needs and that it was an effective teaching tool that had prepared them for real communication challenges in training and practice. It could be used in a variety of contexts to address an often-neglected area of education.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.182
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207