MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157906481 · doi:10.1111/medu.12212

A preliminary study of the impact of a handover cognitive aid on clinical reasoning and information transfer

2013· article· en· W2157906481 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew J. Weiss, Farhan Bhanji, Patrícia S. Fontela, Saleem Razack

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHospital Admissions and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionPsychologyHandoverCognitive psychologyComputer scienceMedicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of a written cognitive aid on expressed clinical reasoning and quantity and the accuracy of information transfer during resident doctor handover. METHODS: This study was a randomised controlled trial in an academic paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) of 20 handover events (10 events per group) from residents in their first PICU rotation using a written handover cognitive aid (intervention) or standard practice (control). Before rounds, an investigator generated a reference standard of the handover event by completing a handover aid. Resident handovers were then audio-recorded and transcribed by a blinded research assistant. The content of this transcript was inserted into a blank handover aid. A blinded content expert scored the quantity and accuracy of the information in this aid according to predetermined criteria and these information scores (ISs) were compared with the reference standard. The same expert also blindly scored the transcripts in five domains of clinical reasoning and effectiveness: (i) effective summary of events; (ii) expressed understanding of the care plan; (iii) presentation clarity; (iv) organisation; (v) overall handover effectiveness. Differences between intervention and control groups were assessed using the Mann-Whitney test and multivariate linear regression. RESULTS: The intervention group had total ISs that more closely approximated the reference standard (81% versus 61%; p < 0.01). The intervention group had significantly higher clinical reasoning scores when compared by total score (21.1 versus 15.9 points; p = 0.01) and in each of the five domains. No difference was observed in the duration of handover between groups (7.4 versus 7.7 minutes; p = 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Using a novel scoring system, our simple handover cognitive aid was shown to improve information transfer and resident expression of clinical reasoning without prolonging the handover duration.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.360 · 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

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicHospital Admissions and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207