MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2772821481 · doi:10.12968/npre.2017.15.12.600

Reflection on practice: Consultation skills

2017· article· en· W2772821481 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lee McLeish, Austyn Snowden

Bibliographic record

VenueNurse Prescribing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCompetence (human resources)Reflection (computer programming)Intensive care medicinePneumoniaReflective practiceNursingMedical educationPedagogyPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this case study is to illustrate how prescribing decisions can be enhanced through the use of systematic consultation, reflection on practice and relevant information seeking. The enhanced Calgary-Cambridge model was used to structure the consultation. Reflection on practice was achieved using Gibbs' model. The case study involved a 74-year-old gentleman admitted to a UK-based intensive therapy unit for high flow nasal oxygen, invasive monitoring and further management of an ongoing pneumonia and sepsis that were not improving despite intravenous antibiotics on the ward. Treatment decisions throughout are backed by guidelines and evidence, and the power of reflection on practice is considered in relation to growing competence as a prescriber.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.401 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNurse PrescribingSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207