Challenges Faced by Pediatric Oncology Fellows When Patients Die During Their Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Given the paucity of research on the experience of pediatric oncology fellows regarding patient death, the purpose of this study was to explore the specific challenges that pediatric oncology fellows face when patients die during their training. METHODS: Six pediatric oncology fellows at two academic cancer centers in Ontario, Canada, were interviewed about their experiences with patient death during their fellowship training. The grounded theory method of data collection and data analysis was used. Line-by-line coding was used to establish themes, and constant comparison was used to establish relationships among emerging codes and themes. RESULTS: Fellows reported structural challenges that included ward duty and lack of follow-up opportunities with bereaved families. Personal challenges included feelings of vulnerability as a result of being a trainee, inexperience with patient death, and feeling alone with one's reactions to patient death. Relational challenges included duration of relationships with families and with supervising staff and perceived lack of modeling on how to cope with patient deaths. CONCLUSION: Structural changes to the fellowship model can be made in order to enhance support with patient death, including informing fellows of all patient deaths and incorporating fellows into follow-up practices with bereaved families. Moreover, integrating fellows' debriefing (facilitated by grief counselors) after a patient death into fellow training, as well as greater involvement with palliative care physicians, can lessen feelings of isolation and help fellows learn effective strategies for dealing with patient deaths from experienced palliative care physicians.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".