Let's talk about it: conversations in advance care planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This workshop is based on Chapter 23 in Thomas and Lobo (2010)1where communication skills are seen as integral to delivering advance care planning (ACP). It reflects the need to teach the principles of ACP alongside communication skills. It recognises that to teach these in isolation may lead to a lack of confidence in the professional engaging patients in discussions around end of life care issues. This workshop draws on models of communication that can lend structure, such as SPIKES, PREPARED, SAGE & THYME and the Calgary-Cambridge model of the consultation. To demonstrate how theory moves into practice, relevant scenarios have been identified to illustrate how they may be used. The theory outlined in Chapter 23 has been taken into the workplace to inform the model of education used in delivering ACP. This work is innovative in understanding the relationship between communication skills and effective ACP and has been put into practice in education development. The workshop will consider the key points of an ACP process. Role played scenarios will be used to engage participants in an interactive process that allows specific communication skills to be demonstrated and reflected upon in the context of ACP.
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 | 0.025 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".