Site Visits in Family Medicine: Stakeholders Perspectives on How Site Visits Can Be Improved to Maximize Preceptor Support and the Quality of Medical Student and Resident Supervision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2012, the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Ottawa conducted a study to identify stakeholder’s perspectives of site visits and how they can be improved to support preceptors and provide the best learning experience for medical students and residents. Two data sources were utilized to address the research questions: interviews with stakeholders (both focus group and individual interviews) and online surveys with preceptors. The findings assert that establishing a process for site visits to maximize preceptor support and the quality of medical student and resident supervision is a complex process. Perceptions of quality site visits for all stakeholders were strongly linked to: 1) having clear expectations; 2) making site visits a priority and supplying the necessary support and resources; 3) supporting preceptors to be better teachers; 4) the quality and timeliness of preceptor feedback from residents and medical students; 5) involving the medical student and resident in the site visit process; and 6) an integration and collaboration among curriculum, faculty development and evaluation resources. As researchers continue to build site visit recipes based on theory and reflection of practical experiences, the resulting insights will enable all stakeholders in family medicine programs to make more informed decisions to positively impact the quality of the site visit experience, support preceptors in being better teachers and improve the quality of the supervision of residents and medical students. This study takes one step toward building a broad base of theoretical knowledge informed by practical experiences on site visits.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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 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".