MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588698538 · doi:10.1017/s0790966700017419

Knowledge and Attitude of Basic Psychiatric Trainees in Ireland to the Clinical Indemnity Scheme

2012· article· en· W2588698538 on OpenAlexaff
Nnamdi Nkire, O. J Akinsola, Annette Kavanagh

Bibliographic record

VenueIrish Journal of Psychological Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health AuthorityCape Breton Regional Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndemnityIrishMedicineFamily medicineDescriptive statisticsPsychiatryPsychologyMedical educationActuarial scienceBusinessStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To assess the knowledge of basic psychiatric trainees in Ireland of the Clinical Indemnity Scheme (CIS) and to ascertain how many basic specialist trainees in psychiatry had obtained additional medical indemnity cover and reasons for obtaining additional cover. METHOD: A structured questionnaire was distributed by post to 300 basic specialist trainees in psychiatric training schemes in Ireland. The questionnaire enquired about demographic details and examined the level of trainees' knowledge of the clinical indemnity scheme. Results were compiled and analysed using descriptive statistics and SPSS version 14. RESULTS: The response rate was 49%. The bulk of respondents were male (65.5%), aged between 30-35 years of age (44.6%). The majority of the respondents were aware of the CIS, with approximately half of the respondents having acquired additional medical indemnity cover. The level of awareness of the CIS was proportionately more amongst male respondents (69.1%), compared with females (58.5%). However, more females (61.5%) had additional medical indemnity cover compared with males (45.5%). Irish national trainees were more aware (72.9%) and had additional medical indemnity (80%), compared with non-Irish national trainees of whom approximately 61% were aware of the CIS and only 40% had an additional cover. The level of knowledge regarding details of what the CIS provided coverage for was quite poor. Respondents who had obtained additional indemnity were unsure what cover their additional indemnity provided. Only 10 respondents had been involved in medico-legal cases and of these, five had medical indemnity at the time of the case, stating that the legal advice and support was helpful. CONCLUSION: Our survey has highlighted that a considerable number of basic specialist trainees in psychiatry in Ireland had no detailed knowledge of what the CIS indemnifies them for and what situations were not covered by the scheme. Additionally, it revealed a clear split in favour of Irish national trainees in comparison to non-Irish national trainees in terms of awareness of the CIS and the procurement of additional medical indemnity. There needs to be an educational drive to provide more information to psychiatric trainees regarding the CIS and other medical insurance schemes. Furthermore, it would be important to examine factors that influence trainees in obtaining/not obtaining additional cover.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.320
GPT teacher head0.591
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIrish Journal of Psychological MedicineSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207