MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137019528 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.264

Are we getting through? A national survey on the CanMEDS communicator role in urology residency

2013· article· en· W2137019528 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
G. Roberts, Darren Bieko, Naji J. Touma, Robert Siemens

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInnovations in Medical Education
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLikert scaleMedicineSpecialtyScale (ratio)UrologyMedical educationDescriptive statisticsCommunication skillsFamily medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Physician communication skills are paramount to patient satisfaction and are linked to important clinical outcomes. Although well-codified in the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) CanMEDS program, the knowledge, skills, and assessment of communication skills in surgical specialty training are rarely addressed. We assess Canadian urology residents' experience of and attitudes towards this crucial competency in training and practice. METHODS: An anonymous, cross-sectional, self-reported questionnaire was administered to all final year urology residents in Canada from 2 consecutive graduating years (2010 and 2011). A closed-ended 5-point Likert scale was used to assess familiarity with the concept of the RCPSC Communicator role and its application and importance to training and practice. Descriptive and correlative statistics were used to analyze the responses, such as the availability of formal training and resident participation in activities involving health communication. For ease of reporting, an agreement score was created for those responding with "strongly agree" and "agree" on the Likert scale. RESULTS: There was a 100% response rate from the chief residents for both of the 2 years of the survey (n = 58). When questioned about the RCPSC CanMEDS roles, only 45% could identify the correct number of roles, and only 19% could correctly list all 7 roles. However, most residents were well aware of the Communicator role (90% agreement [mean 4.47 ± 0.78]), and most agreed that it plays an important role during training and future practice (83% [4.16 ± 0.84], 90% [4.39 ± 0.84] respectively). This is in stark contrast to perceived formal training. Only 31% (3.00 ± 1.04) agreed that formal training or mentorship in communication was available at their institution, and only 38% (3.14 ± 1.19) felt that communication had been formally addressed during explicit sessions. Despite most of the respondents agreeing they had a significant mentor/role model to emulate regarding communication skills, only 48% believed that faculty frequently addressed communication during clinical learning experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Despite knowledge and acceptance of the importance of the Communicator role, there is a perceived lack of formal and explicit training in this essential non-medical expert role of urology residency. It would seem apparent from this needs assessment that there may be an opportunity to coordinate efforts to ensure formal instruction and evaluation in our training programs.

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)0.011
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicInnovations in Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207