MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792010734 · doi:10.1503/cjs.011317

Training surgical residents to use a framework to promote shared decision-making for patients with poor prognosis experiencing surgical emergencies

2018· article· en· W2792010734 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Tyler R. Chesney, Karen Devon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDebriefingSummative assessmentIntervention (counseling)Formative assessmentInterquartile rangeConfidence intervalSession (web analytics)Family medicinePhysical therapyNursingMedical educationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background:</h3> Patients with poor underlying prognosis experiencing surgical emergencies face challenging treatment decisions. The Best Case/Worst Case (BC/WC) framework has improved shared decision-making by surgeons, but it is unclear whether residents can be similarly trained. We evaluated senior general surgical residents’ acceptance of the BC/WC tool and their attitudes, confidence and actions before and after training. <h3>Methods:</h3> Two-hour training included a didactic session, live demonstration, small-group practice and debriefing. We developed questionnaires to evaluate residents’ attitudes, confidence and actions at 3 time points: before the intervention, after the intervention and 6 months after the intervention. We used the Ottawa Decision Support Framework Acceptability questionnaire to evaluate acceptability and a structured observation form to evaluate performance. <h3>Results:</h3> Eighteen (50%) of 36 invited residents participated. Most residents (83%) felt that a new communication tool would be useful. Almost all (94%) used BC/WC in practice. Residents found the tool acceptable and useful to enhance preference-sensitive communications. They felt that the training was valuable and that role play was its greatest strength but that these situations were challenging to simulate. Barriers to BC/WC use included time constraints and difficulty defining the best and worst cases precisely. Summative attitudes and confidence scores were not different before and after the intervention; however, actions scores were higher after the intervention (<i>p</i> = 0.04). Residents performed a median of 15 (interquartile range 13–17) of the 19 elements on the formative performance evaluation. Commonly missed items were narrating outcomes of palliative approaches, prompting deliberation and providing treatment recommendations. <h3>Conclusion:</h3> Senior residents found the BC/WC tool to be acceptable and useful, and are amenable to training in this type of communication. After training, self-reported actions scores increased, and observed performance was accurate.

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)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.219 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207