MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2975949416 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000002998

Explicit Dialogue About the Purpose of Hospital Admission Is Essential: How Different Perspectives Affect Teamwork, Trust, and Patient Care

2019· article· en· W2975949416 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katherina Baranova, Jacqueline Torti, Mark Goldszmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Education and Admissions
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovertNegotiationTeamworkConstructivist grounded theoryAffect (linguistics)PsychologyMedical educationHospital medicineNursingMEDLINEGrounded theoryMedicineQualitative researchSociologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The authors previously found that attending physicians conceptualize hospital admission purpose according to 3 perspectives: one focused dominantly on discharge, one on monitoring and managing chronic conditions, and one on optimizing overall patient health. Given implications of varying perspectives for patient care and team collaboration, this study explored how purpose of admission is negotiated and enacted within clinical teaching teams. METHOD: Direct observations and field interviews took place in 2 internal medicine teaching units at 2 teaching hospitals in Ontario, Canada, in summer 2017. A constructivist grounded theory approach was used to inform data collection and analysis. RESULTS: The 54 participants included attendings, residents, and medical students. Management decisions were identified across 185 patients. Attendings and senior medical residents (second- and third-year residents) were each observed to enact one dominant perspective, while junior trainees (first-year residents and students) appeared less fixed in their perspectives. Teams were not observed discussing purpose of admission explicitly; however, differing perspectives were present and enacted. These differences became most noticeable when at the extremes (discharge focused vs optimization focused) or between senior medical residents and attendings. Attendings implicitly signaled and enforced their perspectives, using authority to shut down and redirect discussion. Trainees' maneuvers for enacting their perspectives ranged from direct advocacy to covert manipulation (passive avoidance/forgetting and delaying until attending changeover). CONCLUSIONS: Failing to negotiate and explicitly label perspectives on purpose of admission may lead to attendings and senior medical residents working at cross-purposes and to trainees participating in covert maneuvers, potentially affecting trust and professional identify development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.017
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicMedical Education and AdmissionsFrench-language works237,207