Using standardized family members to teach communication skills and ethical principles to critical care trainees*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".