Introduction of an online discussion forum and electronic communication practice in a tertiary-level Anaesthesia Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Electronic communication mediums provide an opportunity for clinicians to enhance communication, collaboration, and sharing of clinical experience, especially via mobile devices. In 2016, the authors implemented a private online discussion forum in a tertiary-level anaesthesia department to improve communication and collaboration amongst members. The objective of this survey was to assess if these aims were met, to determine the degree of communication medium duplication incurred by its introduction, and to assess departmental communication practices more generally.Methods: A qualitative anonymous online survey was conducted 18 months following the introduction of the online discussion forum, over a two-month period. All 120 medical staff were invited via forum message and hard-copy invitation and responses were stratified by training status.Results: Forty-seven responses were collected (39% response rate), comprising 31 anaesthesia specialists and 16 anaesthesia trainees. Sixty-one percent of respondents reported that discussion had improved following the introduction of the online discussion forum, with no significant difference between specialists and trainees. Despite this, 57% overall maintained a preference for email discussion.Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the introduction of an online discussion forum resulted in a perceived improvement in overall departmental communication. However, it is important that workplaces considering implementation of a similar communication medium determine their employees’ cultural perspectives on technology, established communication preferences and aims of implementation to ensure success.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".