Perceptions of Clinical Supervision in Ambulatory Settings: Do Supervisee and Supervisors See Eye to Eye?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Given the shortage of primary care physicians, faculties of medicine have been seeking ways to encourage medical students to opt for family medicine as their career choice. The Faculty of Medicine in Geneva decided to incorporate a mandatory one-month rotation during clerkship in a primary care physician’s private office. Such a learning environment offers a privileged opportunity for the student but represents a considerable challenge for clinical teachers. With the goal of identifying training priorities, we sought to investigate the differences in perception of clinical supervision held by clinical teachers and by students. Methods: Cognitive apprenticeship is a well-established theoretical framework for studies on clinical supervision. The Maastricht Clinical Teaching Questionnaire, based on this theory, measures five dimensions of clinical supervision. We used this validated questionnaire to compare student assessment and supervisor self-assessment of the clinical supervision. A total of 275 students over two years assessed their clinical supervision experience provided by a group of 128 clinical supervisors. This hierarchical configuration of the collected data (students were grouped according to the supervisor they had assessed) implied using a linear mixed-effects model approach to assess the significance of observed scores. Results: The results clearly show that students consistently scored their supervisor higher on all five dimensions than the supervisors did themselves. Although it appears that students and supervisors do not focus on the same issues pertaining to clinical supervision, and student expectations might not coincide with supervisors’, the fact remains that they both experience the tasks described in each of the five dimensions together. Conclusion: The results of our study point to some improvements to the training of clinical supervisors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".