Training surgical residents to use a framework to promote shared decision-making for patients with poor prognosis experiencing surgical emergencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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 (p = 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. Conclusion: 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 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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".