Comparing resident–patient encounters and case presentations in a family medicine clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Oral case presentations following resident-patient interactions provide the primary mechanism by which faculty supervisors assess resident competence. However, the extent to which these presentations capture the content and quality of resident-patient communication during the encounter remains unknown. We aimed to determine whether: (i) the resident-patient encounter content matched information conveyed in the case presentation; (ii) the quality of resident-patient communication was accurately conveyed, and (iii) supervisors addressed effective and ineffective communication processes. METHODS: A total of 22 pairs of resident-patient encounters and family medicine resident case presentations were video- or audiorecorded, transcribed and compared for content. Resident-patient communication was assessed using adapted versions of the Calgary-Cambridge Guide to the Medical Interview and Explanation and Planning Scale. RESULTS: Interviews and presentations contained largely congruent content, but social history and the patient's perspective were consistently excluded from case presentations. Although six of 19 specific communication skills were used in over 80% of resident encounters, the effective use of communication skills was widely variable. In most presentations, the quality of resident-patient communication was not explicitly conveyed to the supervisor. Although resident presentations provided 'cues' about communication issues, supervisors rarely responded. CONCLUSIONS: This study lends support to direct observation in workplace-based learning of communication skills. When content areas such as the patient's perspective and education are excluded, supervisors cannot address them. In addition, presentations provided minimal insight about the quality of resident-patient encounters and limited the ability to address communication skills. These skills could be enhanced by attending to communication cues during case presentations, making increased use of direct observation and feedback, and promoting faculty development to address these missed teaching opportunities.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".