Internal Medicine Residents' Acceptance of Self-Directed Learning Plans at the Point of Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We implemented a curriculum using self-directed learning plans (SDLPs) based on clinical questions arising from the residents' practice, and we report on perceptions and attitudes from residents in internal medicine regarding the use of SDLPs conceived at point of care. METHODS: Internal medicine residents at a single community hospital in the Midwest were surveyed in 2006 regarding SDLPs. We report their perceived effectiveness in identifying knowledge gaps, the processes used to fill those gaps, and the resident outcomes using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 26 out of 37 residents (70%) responded. Most (24 of 26; 92%) perceived SDLPs helped them to identify and fill knowledge gaps and that their skills in framing questions (23 of 26; 88%), identifying resources (21 of 26; 81%), and critically appraising the evidence (20 of 26; 77%) improved through regular use. They also felt these plans led to a meaningful change in their practice or provided further direction for learning (17 of 26; 65%). Most (21 of 26; 81%) reported their intent to include point-of-care learning in their continuing education after residency. We found no significant differences in the responses of first-year compared with second- or third-year residents. CONCLUSIONS: Questions arising during patient care are strong motivators for physician self-directed learning. The residents' responses indicated that they accepted the SDLPs and intend to use them in practice. Embedding the discussion of the SDLPs in preclinic conferences has ensured sustainability during the past 5 years and has enabled us to demonstrate teaching of practice-based learning and improvement.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".