Improved clinical training of internal medicine students in hospital wards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Clinical training (CT) in internal medicine wards is a compulsory part of the internal medicine courses in Sweden. Aim: To ask physicians responsible for different CT programs about the perceived quality of their programs and about ideas of improvement. Hypothesis: The average quality of local CT programs is generally perceived as low by responsible physicians.Methods: The author combined a literature review with own experiences to develop a novel quality assurance questionnaire aimed at improving the overall quality of CT. Eight geographically spread teaching hospitals were included in the study. Telephone interviews were conducted with responsible physicians. The interviews contained two parts: The questionnaire developed by the author containing twenty-seven 5-point rating scale questions on the quality of the local CT and open-ended questions about suggestions for improvement of the local teaching organization. Medians and percentage of maximum total score of the rating scale questions were calculated and improvements suggested by the participants were summarized.Results: The average quality of the CT programs as measured by the total score of the developed questionnaire was 51% (of maximum 100%) and varied between hospitals (range 33%-65%).Conclusions: There seem to be a large potential for improvements in different CT programs. Improved collaboration between universities and teaching hospitals and the agreement on national standards could potentially improve the quality of CT in order to guarantee a uniform clinical education of high quality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.031 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".