MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132083147 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.g.01037

Communication Skills Training in Orthopaedics

2008· article· en· W2132083147 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kristopher Lundine, Richard Buckley, Carol Hutchison, Jocelyn Lockyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupCommunication skills trainingCommunication skillsMedical educationFlexibility (engineering)Experiential learningMedicineSoft skillsSkills managementHealth carePersonality psychologyQualitative researchPsychologyNursingPersonalityPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Communication skills play a key role in many aspects of both medical education and clinical patient care. The objectives of this study were to identify the key components of communication skills from the perspectives of both orthopaedic residents and their program directors and to understand how these skills are currently taught. METHODS: This study utilized a mixed methods design. Quantitative data were collected with use of a thirty-item questionnaire distributed to all Canadian orthopaedic residents. Qualitative data were collected through focus groups with orthopaedic residents and semistructured interviews with orthopaedic program directors. RESULTS: One hundred and nineteen (37%) of 325 questionnaires were completed, twelve residents participated in two focus groups, and nine of sixteen program directors from across the country were interviewed. Both program directors and residents identified communication skills as being the accurate and appropriate use of language (i.e., content skills), not how the communication was presented (i.e., process skills). Perceived barriers to effective communication included time constraints and the need to adapt to the many personalities and types of people encountered daily in the hospital. Residents rarely have explicit training in communication skills. They rely on communication training implicitly taught through observation of their preceptors and clinical experience interacting with patients, peers, and other health-care professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Orthopaedic residents and program directors focus on content and flexibility within communication skills as well as on the importance of being concise. They value the development of communication skills in the clinical environment through experiential learning and role modeling. Education should focus on developing residents' process skills in communication. Care should be taken to avoid large-group didactic teaching sessions, which are perceived as ineffective.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.135 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations22
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207