Facilitating Whole Person Care Using Video Reflexive Ethnography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Explore the application and potential of video reflexive ethnography (VRE) to facilitate whole person care (WPC).Objectives: Discuss the ethical issues associated with VRE; explore the foundations of the methodology; and discuss its potential to facilitate WPC.Description: WPC requires a paradigm shift in how we see those we care for, how we see our co-workers and how we see ourselves. VRE involves videoing real-time everyday clinical practice and or patient and family accounts of care, and then involving participants to analyse the visual data that they feature in or have gathered themselves. Uniquely, video footage can challenge the taken for granted and attune people to dimensions of themselves and others that they might not otherwise have considered. This has the potential to open people up to alternative ways of thinking and perceiving, being and acting. It offers “transformative potential” towards WPC.We draw from our diverse disciplinary perspectives to explore the potential of VRE as a tool to facilitate WPC. Using specific examples from five research studies, this workshop will demonstrate the use of VRE in a variety of health care contexts. The contexts of the studies we draw from include: end of life care; autism diagnostics; infection control, and intensive care.The workshop proceeds in four parts. We first invite you, the participant, to engage in a video reflexive event, where you are expected to reflect on the socio-interactive conduct that you produce as a group in response to a specific task. We then describe the process of VRE, outline its pedagogic and theoretical foundations, and present some examples from our research. We then invite questions about the theoretical basis and practical approach of VRE. Finally, participants will be asked to project a version of reflexive video onto their 'home' area of research, and reason about potential outcomes.1. Carroll, K., Iedema, R. and Kerridge, I. 2008, 'Reshaping ICU Ward Round Practices Using Video Reflexive Ethnography', Qualitative Health Research, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 380-390.2. Collier, A. 2012, 'Safe Healing Environments', in N. Godbold and M. Vaccarella (eds), Autonomous Responsible Alone: The Complexities of Patient Empowerment, Interdisciplinary Press, London, pp. 155-170.3. Iedema, R. 2011, 'Creating Safety by Strengthening Clinicians' Capacity for Reflexivity ', British Medical Journal, vol. 20, pp. S83-S86.4. Iedema, R. and Carroll, K. 2011, 'The 'clinalyst': Institutionalising reflexive space to realise safety and flexible systematisation in health care', Journal of Organisational Change Management vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 65-86.5. Iedema, R., Long, D., Forsyth, D. and Lee, B.B. 2006, 'Visibilising Clinical Work: Video ethnography in the contemporary hospital', Health Sociology Review, vol. 15, pp. 156-168.
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".