MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Implementing a communication skills programme in medical school: needs assessment and programme change

2002· article· en· W2122220292 on OpenAlexaffabout
Toni Suzuki Laidlaw, Heather MacLeod, David Kaufman, Donald B. Langille, Joan Sargeant

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumMedical educationStrengths and weaknessesCommunication skillsNeeds assessmentPsychologyWeaknessMedicinePedagogySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Communication skills training (CST) in medicine, once considered a minor subject, is now ranked a core clinical skill. To assess the state of formal and informal CST at Dalhousie Medical School a needs assessment was undertaken in 1997 with the goal of using these findings to plan and implement a new communication skills curriculum. OBJECTIVES: This article briefly describes the relevant findings of the needs assessment, the subsequent development of an integrated cross curriculum CST programme, and early programme evaluation results. METHOD: Surveys were completed by undergraduates at the end of pre-clinical (n=65), and clinical phases (n=82), residents (n=54), and faculty (n=117). Results revealed learners' and faculty's appreciation of the importance of CST, learners' assessment of training weaknesses in the delivery of CST, learners' weakness in higher order patient--doctor communication skills, and faculty weakness in assessing learners' communication skills competency. The results also indicated that CST was generally not being addressed either formally or informally in clinical medical education. RESULTS: The paper describes and discusses the subsequent implementation (beginning in 1998) of CST into the medical school curriculum. There is a description of programme development and evaluation at the pre-clinical, clerkship and postgraduate levels, a description and discussion of faculty development, and discussion of the importance of financial and administrative support for the programme. CONCLUSION: Programme evaluation results at all levels are positive.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.210
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations77
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207