Overshadowed by Assessment: Understanding Trainee and Supervisor Perspectives on the Oral Case Presentation in Internal Medicine Workplace-Based Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The oral case presentation (OCP) is an essential part of daily clinical practice in internal medicine (IM) and a key competency in medical education. It is not known how supervisors and trainees perceive OCPs in workplace-based learning and assessment. METHOD: Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, 26 semistructured interviews were held with trainees and supervisors (18 clinical clerks and first- through third-year postgraduate trainees, and 8 supervisors) on the IM clinical teaching unit at the University of Toronto, 2015-2016. Interviews focused on how the OCP was viewed by both trainees and supervisors in clinical practice as a tool for patient care, learning, and assessment. Iterative, constant comparative techniques were used to analyze the interviews and develop a framework to understand trainee and supervisor perspectives. RESULTS: Supervisors and trainees viewed the OCP as an important part of informal trainee assessment in IM. Supervisors used OCPs to understand the patient through trainee-demonstrated skills including the use of narratives, information synthesis, and management of uncertainty. However, because of awareness of assessment, trainees sought to control the OCP, viewing it as a performance demonstrating their competence, mediated by senior residents and tailored to supervisor preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Preoccupied with assessment around OCPs, trainees often lost sight of the valuable learning taking place. Use of OCPs in assessment necessitates optimization of the educational activity for trainees. Providing explicit direction to both trainees and supervisors, defining expectations, and clarifying the assessment activity of the OCP can optimize the encounter for best educational practice.
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 | 0.041 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".