A new communication skills training program for palliative care fellow-physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This presentation describes a novel educational program associated with a Palliative Care Post-Graduate Medical Fellowship embedded within a university teaching hospital. The educational objectives of this program will be presented, as will the pedagogical methods and initial trainee responses to this program. Grounded in both an action-reflection model, as well as the discrimination model of clinical supervision (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009), the objective of this new program is to help physicians develop their clinical skills in understanding and negotiating the complex psychosocial issues associated with advanced cancer care. Secondary objectives include developing increased self-awareness in the domains of death, dying, bereavement and supportive counselling. This program was constructed in parallel with the learning objectives of two Canadian accreditation bodies in Palliative Medicine and was drawn on an established Spiritual Care pedagogical method for tertiary health care settings (Lambert, 2013). Training includes two 90 minute bi-monthly meetings, comprising either a verbatim case report or a reflective practice group. In the former, medical fellows presented a case to a peer-group that centered largely on psychological and not medical issues. Fellows receive feedback on their communication skills, as well as on case conceptualization and treatment planning. Trainees also participate in a reflective practice group to provide an additional opportunity to deepen self-awareness, as well as reflect on how their attitudes, values and assumptions affect the role of a palliative care physician. The presentation will also report initial trainee responses to the program based on exit interviews. This training model can also easily be transferred to the training of various health care disciplines associated with palliative care. Considerations for adjustment of the program to other practice settings will be encouraged from attendees. The syllabus for the program will be provided upon request. Pedagogical methodsA didactic approach will be used to outline the basic structure of the program. To illustrate the intersections of theory and practice, the workshop will include presentations of several group case vignettes. Participants will be invited to provide feedback on the potential strengths and limitations of this program. Expected outcomesPeople attending this workshop will obtain practical information concerning a new communication skills training program, as well as techniques and strategies they may wish to bring to their particular practice setting. This training model can also easily be transferred to the training of various health care disciplines associated with palliative care.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".