Challenging Authority During an Emergency—the Effect of a Teaching Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Previous research has shown that residents were unable to effectively challenge a superior's wrong decision during a crisis situation, a problem that can contribute to preventable mortality. We aimed to assess whether a teaching intervention enabled residents to effectively challenge clearly wrong clinical decisions made by their staff. SUBJECTS AND INTERVENTION: Following ethics board approval, second year residents were randomized to a teaching intervention targeting cognitive skills needed to challenge a superior's decision, or a control group receiving general crisis management instruction. Two weeks later, subjects participated in a simulated crisis that presented them with opportunities to challenge clearly wrong decisions in a can't-intubate-can't-ventilate scenario. It was only disclosed that the staff was a confederate during the debriefing. Performances were video recorded and assessed by two raters blinded to group allocation using the modified Advocacy-Inquiry Score. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Fifty residents completed the study. The interrater reliability of the modified Advocacy-Inquiry Scores (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.87) was excellent. The median (interquartile range) best modified Advocacy-Inquiry Score was significantly better in the intervention group 5.0 (4.50-5.62 [4-6]) than in the control group 3.5 (3.0-4.75 [3-6]) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A short targeted teaching intervention was effective in significantly improving residents' ability to challenge a wrong decision by a superior. This suggests that residents are not given the proper tools to challenge authority during a life-threatening crisis situation. This educational gap can have significant implications for patients' safety.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".